What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

"America first".

Just as someone in China should adopt "China first", someone in Japan adopting "Japan first", etc...

I believe that someone working anywhere should, first, be concerned with how working conditions and wages are in their particular country. If wages and conditions go down in my country, but go up elsewhere, I can;t see any way I would ever consider that "good"...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Could you define globalism?

It can have more than one meaning in context, and that would definitely colour my answer.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

ahoy Coberst matey!!!!

i think this question, the way it be framed, is a darn hard one to answer.

if america was a place where wealth and the fruits 'o vittory were all evenly divided, it might be easier to find meself a proper response...but its not that kind 'o place.

take yerself, for instance.

lets say you're one of them people who are reaping tons 'o gold and treasure from this thing you be callin' "globalism".

lets say these monies you are reapin' from globalism helps ya put yer son in a fine private school...gets wonderous orthidontal care for your daughter...makes ya so rich yer wife doesnt have to work, and is free to devote her time carin' fer your fambly and to engage in meaningful social work, while also allowing her free time to pursue her hobbies and intrests, and also gives you the excess monies you need to keep your aging parents in a wonderous nursing home (some of them kinda resemble country clubs).

well then, morally, from your point 'o view, you're doinga heckuva job.

on the other hand, if you think that in the end, we're all one peoples, and that the poor folks in the north carolina textile industry who are currently without jobs and without hopes are part of a bigger spiritual picture that we all connected to, and bear responsibilty for...well, you might come to a different point 'o view, mate.

i guess it all depends on whar yer ship be on the horizon, and what telescope you be peerin' at the world thru.

aye.

-meadhallpirate

Mead....

I think that you may be talking about self-interest rather than morality. I think I understand where the self-interest lay but I do not know where the morality lay.

You are confusing globalisation with capitalism & economic liberalism... These things aren't all the same...

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

By "globalism" it sounds as though you are talking about the Washington Consensus pushed by the IMF, the World Bank, the Treasury, etc. since the 80s; privatization, economic liberalization, and fiscal austerity, on a worldwide scale. This is a very narrow understanding of globalization, which also includes political and social aspects besides economic ones.

Anyway, as meadhallpirate pointed out, it all depends on your perspective. I think globalization (economic, political, social) is neutral by itself -- all it is is technological innovations leading to greater connectedness among people. I don't think this is inherently good or bad, but rather it's what we make of it.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Globalization is more a less a win-win-situation for poor and developed countries, but that doesn`t mean, that there won`t be any loosers. Every change and progress in the economy has positive and negative aspects.
Think about the coachmen who lost their job becasue of the invention of the automobile.

__________________
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else

Claude Frédéric Bastiat

*salutes Coberst*

aye matey, i be talkin' about self intrest, fer certain.

i guess i was just reflectin' on me own life, as a pirate traversing the seas here in america. often times, me self-intrest conflicts with me own sense 'o morality.

given the example ye cited, i was looking at globalization from a fiscal point 'o view, and to take your example further...well, some folks benefit, and others don't.

the salty dog, Steve, himself pointed out that from his point 'o view, his morality was "american first".

if i could take the liberty 'o doing so (*bows respectfully towards Steve*), and distill his point of view even further, his morality would be "family first". this isn't purely self intrest (as it suggests a care an concern for something other than "self").

i guess we all have different interpretations 'o morality, and i saw it as the caring and lovin' and concern for others.

now that i thinks about it, you could probably insert any word for "globalization" into yer question, and you'd still face the same conundrum. ie-

what moral attitude should we take towards war?
what moral attitude should we take to slave labor?
what moral attitude should we take towards imperialism?
what moral attitude should we take towards nation building?
what moral attitude should we take towards a progressive tax?
etc, etc, etc.

all these things, and more, probably benefit some folks, while making life more onerous for others, mate. in some cases, "onerous" means that some folks will die.

our moral attitude is something that lurks in the back 'o our minds, but, more often than not, probably runs second to self intrest, and care for the ones we love.

anyways....YARRRRRRRRR!!!

-meadhallpirate

We delude ourselves in thinking we can do anything to stop, or even control globalization.

If we as a nation, a community, want to do something, we need to push our kids as hard as we can into science and math classes. We need to turn off our televisions, cut the wires to the Xbox, and re-create the American dominance in science and technology before it's too late.

That deadline is coming mightily close.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I agree. Globalization is inevitable, regardless of whether one is talking economics, politics, or whatever. As with all gradients, the flow will go in the direction of equilibrium. However, an increase inconcentration on the side that is lacking, may just decrease the rate so that adjustment to the new system is not a shocking. There is little resistance now due to communications.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

What is globalism & globalization?

Globalism Versus Globalization by Joseph Nye - The Globalist > > Global Culture

Joe Nye, former Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, informs us: Globalism describes the existence of various forms of networks that interconnect multi-continental distances while globalization describes the degree of globalism. In short, Nye considers “Globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale”… globalization is the process by which globalism becomes increasingly thick and/or intense.

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

I generally use globalism and globalization as very equal terms, but Nye's model clears up some inconsistencies and works well.

This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it. At the most fundamental level, I think globalism is pretty amoral. I mean to say that the technologies that historically gave rise to the information, communication, and transportation networks have no inherent "goodness" or "badness" to them. It definitely depends on how these networks are harnessed, though. For example, if a single airline industry somehow monopolized the world network of air transportation, then I would likely take a negative stance in that particular aspect of globalism. Similarly, I disagree with how the IMF, WB, and WTO, among others, have undemocratically managed economic globalization, trying to bring developing countries into the networks that comprise globalism. These sorts of networks (a hypothetical airline monopoly, international trade and financial organizations, etc.) are not at the most fundamental level of globalism, but they're very important to how the consequences of globalism (and globalization) play out.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I think you are correct. Sailing a ship on the ocean is amoral but when you pirate another ship then it becomes immoral and illegal. With corporations few things are illegal but many have a moral content.

we should fight it tooth and nail and subdue it and throw it's vulgar carcass on the pyre .

it is not inevitable , it is not desirable , and it shouldnt be tolerated.