Sorry to clutter your mailboxes, but there were so many typos in my
message that I send it again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Some words to sum up my views in this discussion:
The explanations given by the pundits for "globalization" occuring are
of two main types:
Cost-effective: Economies of scale, sharper competition,
enhanced consumer choice (this explanation is in the "it is
good for you"-category).
Technology-driven: Communications, computer, transportation
technology etc. (this is in the "it happens whether we like it
or not"-category).
But a THIRD type of explanation is IMO extremely underestimated:
Globalization means effective denial of the possibility to
mobilize people against capital, and even the formal
right to control/influence capital, through discussion and
decisions taken on national/regional political arena. One thus
substitutes at least _some_ democratic control with/influence on
the capitalists, with unfettered capitalist dictatorship. It
means a revolutionary change in relative strengths of classes
in favor of the capitalist class. The capitalist class of
course is very conscious of this. THIS is IMO the main reason
for the capitalist campaign for g. But they of course are not
stupid, and don't say this outright.
Btw, by 1996, the main content of the hypnotic day-to-day campaign to
get working people to resign and accept g., is based on g. "being
inevitable" (category 2 above).
The argument in category 1 ("it is good for you") hasn't much
credibility among the working class by now.
regards,
Trond Andresen
