Comment Who's confusing what? (Score 1) 573
I appreciate the fact that Katz is willing to addresses globalism which is indeed a delicate subject.
However, I would point out that when he accuses the protesters of confusing globalization with corporatism, or more accurately, corporatization, he falls into the same trap that the major media falls into, sometimes accidentally, sometimes willfully. Are there individuals on the front-lines of the protest that oversimplify global politics? Of course, such is the nature of coalition. However, I would argue that the vast majority are not naive isolationists who wish to withdraw from the world stage.
It is a very different thing to wish that globalization was a more popularly controlled process than to wish it away entirely. It is certainly true that a broad spectrum of interests are marching under the flag of "anti-globalization", a term I find terribly misleading. Of late, I have seem people shifting the terminology to "anti-corporate globalism" which is a very different thing.
I think you will find that the vast majority of dissent is generated by people who do not wish to avoid globalism but who wish to have a say in its development.
I would also point out that the Economist article happily falls into the same trap of oversimplification. The author uses one broadly conceived hypothetical situation to "prove" that NGO and government intervention is doomed to "dire political consequences".
There can be no doubt that sometimes the protestors do not address the complexities of the new global politics and economy. However, the critics have a responsibility to elucidate the complexities of the situation, not simply to provide oversimplified counterpoint. We have the conventional media for that.
However, I would point out that when he accuses the protesters of confusing globalization with corporatism, or more accurately, corporatization, he falls into the same trap that the major media falls into, sometimes accidentally, sometimes willfully. Are there individuals on the front-lines of the protest that oversimplify global politics? Of course, such is the nature of coalition. However, I would argue that the vast majority are not naive isolationists who wish to withdraw from the world stage.
It is a very different thing to wish that globalization was a more popularly controlled process than to wish it away entirely. It is certainly true that a broad spectrum of interests are marching under the flag of "anti-globalization", a term I find terribly misleading. Of late, I have seem people shifting the terminology to "anti-corporate globalism" which is a very different thing.
I think you will find that the vast majority of dissent is generated by people who do not wish to avoid globalism but who wish to have a say in its development.
I would also point out that the Economist article happily falls into the same trap of oversimplification. The author uses one broadly conceived hypothetical situation to "prove" that NGO and government intervention is doomed to "dire political consequences".
There can be no doubt that sometimes the protestors do not address the complexities of the new global politics and economy. However, the critics have a responsibility to elucidate the complexities of the situation, not simply to provide oversimplified counterpoint. We have the conventional media for that.
