Is globalization really Westernization?

Post Reply New Topic

I disagree. Globalisation really started with the European powers. Especially the British Empire. The main spheres around the world are of French, Spanish and British influence.

In the case of American globalisation, it was a case of the student becoming the master. However the American empire is unique and the first of its kind because it is a private empire, not a state owned one.

In answer to the original question, yes Globalisation is a western phenomenon. How many non western nations are you seeing spreading out its influence, in a orchestrated way?

The first map was entirely adequate to show the extent of the British Empire at its height, even though it would grow a bit more. The only changes between 1900 and 1942 were the independence of Ireland and the annexation of some German colonies and Ottoman territories.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 21 Aug 2012, 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

There is nothing wrong with evidence. The fact that Keynes commented on the issue might justifying looking at his arguments. However, you did not present his arguments. You only gave his opinion. That is why I called it the fallacy of authority.

Yes, economically, globalization is corporate capitalism. However, globalization can also be used in other senses.

You are referring to what we call in sociology, neocolonialism. That is the basis of what I mean by globalization.



I don't think it is orchestrated. That is conspiratorial. Corporations act in the perceived interests of their owners or stockholders.

What has orchestration to do with it? Globalization is not imperialism.

Globalization is about how all the planet comes to be one global system. It's about how you can buy something in New York that was made in India, and how you can buy something in Addis-Abeba that was made in Paris, how people can move with (relative) ease from Jakarta to Recife, from Mexico to Casablanca, from Vologda to Lisbon, how people who live in Palermo, Tbilisi and Guangzhou can undestand each other and know things in common.

Of course, one of its consequence is the fact that the country (or countries) who are leading the movement have a greater influence, probably even a negative influence on the others, and there is no way to deny that the Americans are pushing it for themselves, not for those whom they effectively dominate, but it is not just a one-way process. I live in Montreal, yet I have books which were printed in the UK, France and Iran, my t-shirt was made in India and my phone is Korean, I went myself to Syria, Iran, Greece, the USA, France, Switzerland and Italy (I'll admit that I was a baby for the first three), and I eat Lebanese, Greek and Chinese food frequently (in any case, "traditional" Quebec food is either made with maple products or not so traditional). It seems all banal or trivial, or like I'm oppressing factory workers in Bangalore/not giving work to people in Canada, but five centuries ago, almost all my possessions would have been made within (random number) 50 km of where I lived, possibly with raw materials taken a bit further away, I would probably not have met many people from further away, and certainly not have done so myself. That is not trivial.

Bingo. Corporations do not exist to create jobs. They do not exist to benefit society. The exist to produce profits for those who invested their money and time in them. Corporatism is rational self interest writ large.

ruveyn

It's not a fallacy unless ruveyn used Keynes' opinion deductively.

So, Keynes saying "X is true" can be taken as evidence that one should regard X as true. It's not STRONG evidence, but it certainly does inform the person of some fact that should lead them to change their mind on an issue. Now, you may dispute calling this "evidence" but that's a purely verbal quibble.

If you want to push this even further, then by denying authority the ability to justify a position ultimately denies authorities the ability to control opinions in situations where non-authorities cannot be informed enough to make a rational opinion. So, if you go to the doctor, and he tells you "You have a heart condition and need medication", he's not actually provided you any argument on the matter, but your opinion on your health ought to change, and his statement is the evidence that changes your opinion.

Going further most sources describing the "argument from authority" claim that uses where the fallibility of the authority is recognized and the argument inductive are not fallacious. And that's because non-fallacious arguments from authority rely on the very similar reasoning to the sort we would use for trusting the expert opinion of our doctor on whether we have a heart issue.

This is a debate. Potential fallacy notwithstanding, just stating that Keynes said something is neither convincing, interesting nor useful.

Also, one could dispute the authority of extremely dead economists with regards to contemporary issues.

That is the problem. It is rational self-interest.

I disagree. The fallacy of authority presents "name dropping" as evidence. That is precisely what happened in this case.

Keynes was a proven economic genius. He analyzed Germany's economic value right on the dot during the Treaty of Versailles negotiations. It was the U.S. and France who preferred to ignore what Keyne's had to say and they busted Germany down to the ground which laid the path to yet another world war.

Keynes' expertise was proven again and again. That is because he was an expert mathematician and a leading theorist in probability theory.

ruveyn

Self interest raises the question -- whose self interest ? The company's, the CEO's, the sharerholder's, etc.

I traced this back because I love me some fallacies.

Although Ruvy took a different tack in his later posts. I think what he did here is cite a counter example. Keynes was interested in the global economy before the dates you have given and he was alive in that period. If we see Keynes not as an expert but as a informant (you use that term in your field too I think.) To get a "slam dunk" Ruve has gotta show that Keynes or anyone talked about the global economy before 1944. It should not be hard because Johnny Keynes died in 1946.

With this said I completly agree with you that globalization in its current form is Americanization. I also think my favorite secular Rabbi of New Jersey is very keen in point out that Americanization is a continuation of the British Imperial programme.

Of course this is all arbitrary 1944 seems a good a date as any to call the begining of a period.

Not really.

The Silk Road is over 2000 years old, rich people in Ireland and Scotland could purchase luxury items and raw materials from Africa, India or China quite easily. Until very recently every single blue in tapestry, painting or mosaic came out of a single lapis lazuli mine in Afghanistan and lapis lazuli from that mine was being worked in Egypt 6000 years ago.

Granted these ancient trade networks didn't include the Americas or Australia but as soon as they were discovered they were roped in, hence the slave trade to the cotton fields of the South to provide cotton, furs from Canada and precious metals and timbers that were sent back to Europe.

You said it. "Luxury items", and the raw materials to do them. Long-distance commerce was based mostly on spices, silk, gems, furs and other luxury items. However, five centuries ago, chances are I would have been a peasant. I would not have bought silk garments or lapis-lazuli. I would have sold grain to the city to pay my money rent; if I couldn't produce them myself, I might have bought some cheap stuff or fabric so my wife, who was born in a nearby village, could make clothes. That's it.

Historians love to talk of the Silk Road or about the spice trade and such because long-distance commerce is all shiny and because it generally creates wealthy, socially influential merchants and extant trade contracts (and also because it makes the long Middle Ages look more modern), but it was a drop in the ocean of world economy. Most commerce was simply trade within a city and its hinterland, or between neighbouring cities, but since this kind of trade involved less capital, little risk and small profit margins, it made few people truly rich and didn't require complex contracts. This kind of trade involved involved foodstuffs, salt, wool, a small amount of iron (granted, this traveled a lot, there aren't mine everywhere), etc., all sorts of basic or vital goods -- which today, you will notice, are traded on a global scale. Of course, especially after the 12th century, there was moderately long-distance trade for all of these, but still, not enough to talk of "globalization". In this case, "long-distance" means that Venice could buy grain from the Black Sea (but only to avoid famine in the city) or salt from anywhere in the Mediterranean (it doubles as ballast), and that Hanseatic merchants traveled the coast from the Baltic to Portugal. Saying this is "globalization" is far-fetched. It looks very much like "europeanization". Obviously, I know less about extra-european commerce, but it was the same thing: transport costs were too high too justify long-distance trade in most goods not intended for luxury consumption, especially over land. This is slowly changing as we approach the first era of colonialism, but this starts only after 1500, and especially after 1600. I didn't say "five centuries" at random.

Also, Canadian timber starts being a meaningful merchandise is the 19th century.

You won't win on commercial history.