Suppose that a spokesperson for the Democracy Movement stated that a great deal of information is revealed. We are not opposed to democracy in fact we welcome it, and see a movement away from globalization as a movement toward democracy. Corporate media people, having claimed the word, would have a difficult time explaining why police were beating protesters who claim to represent a Democracy Movement. There are some leftists who are repulsed by it, but this is because it has been used to define fascism, right wing dictators and all manners of undemocratic things. By allowing corporate media to use the negative "anti-globalization," and accepting it will not get us far. They imply that we are only against, and have no alternative. Calling it "The Democracy Movement" already implies an alternative a system that provides for the masses to replace a system that provides for the few.
Explaining globalization is an inevitable process, but we ought to make it work for democracy. It could help to unify people, and this should be good news for those who believe in the existence of common values for the human being.
Globalization is creating rapid and worldwide changes in communication, politics, and patterns of human migration. Globalization looks at both the force of these pervasive changes and the varying interpretations of them in different parts of the world. New links between religion and politics, between mass media and civil society, between free markets and forced are being created.
Things have changed over time only because people are being introduced more and more to new things that are not apart of their normal way of living. The steady transitions from the usage of the telephone, radio systems, and the television, to computers, the Internet, cable TV, and cellular phones has drastically changed the ways and lifestyles of many countries all over the world. The more goods that travel to places other than where they were produced, the more ideas travel from place to place. The more people that move from one place to another, the more various cultures will begin to alter and form new styles of living.
There are examples that shows how some countries are becoming westernized and how the United States has accommodated some of their American-oriented businesses. Over 20% of the world's population speaks English. In India, there are some McDonalds restaurants that serve mutton in the place of beef to accommodate the meals of the most orthodox Hindu. These examples prove that the more a country becomes involved with other countries, and share their different aspects and way of life, the more both countries will adapt and adhere to each other's ways.
In my opinion, it would be most attracted to someone who is a frequent traveler but still lives in the United States. It would give them some ideas of what to expect and not expect when they visit these countries. It reveals some details about how that particular country's way of life is similar and different from the United States. If I were traveling to a country that I have never been to before, I would want to know as much as I could about that country paying close attention to how that country is similar to the United States. For colleagues that chose to study abroad, this would come of great use to them because it gives them some type of understanding of how other countries are similar and differ from the United States. It would create some type of indication to them of what to expect before they were to actually leave and give them an idea of the country's cultural ways.
One could argue that globalization begins with the dawn of history. The literature, however, has tended to date the start of globalization more recently in the experience of the West. At one end of the spectrum, historians have noted the importance of the first go around of the Earth in 1519-21 (Mazlish 1993). World-system theorists maintain that the expansion of European capitalism in the 16th century marks the start of globalization (Wallerstein 1974). Some economic historians point to the turn of the century as the peak of international trade and investment before the shake of World War I and the Great Depression threw the world into spiraling protectionism (Williamson 1996). Some say that globalization "took off" between 1875 and 1925 with the time-zoning of the world and the establishment of the international dateline; the near-global adoption of the Gregorian calendar and the adjustable seven-day week; and the establishment of international telegraphic and signaling codes. Students of social movements for the abolition of slavery, woman suffrage, or the prohibition of female circumcision argue that the emergence of contemporary transnational advocacy networks can be traced back to the second half of the 19th century (Sikkink 1998:41-72).
Idealist look forward to a global village linked together by the Internet, and benefiting from ever-increasing material well being. Pessimists see a horrible corporate tyranny destroying the environment, and sweeping away all that is healthy and meaningful to human existence. Anti-globalization activists understand that sympathetic and mutually beneficial global ties are good. But we want social and global ties to advance universal equity, solidarity, diversity, and self-management, not to subjugate ever-wider populations to an elite minority. We want to globalize equity not poverty, solidarity not anti-sociality, diversity not conformity, democracy not subordination, and ecological balance not suicidal rapaciousness.
Globalization promotes the free movement and exchange of ideas and commodities over vast distances. Computer makers buy hard drives from Malaysia, monitors from Taiwan and processor chips from California. But licit drugs, arms, and oil far overshadow the computer marketplace by volume and value. Money laundering takes advantage of new global opportunities to move money anonymously. Mercenary companies offer their services to weakening nation states. While environmental crisis and new diseases show further proof of the problems facing the new "global village."
Communication of resistance between free markets and democracies is not aided by conceiving of globalization as a planetary scenario in which countries are markets and the scope of national policies is limited to decisions that do not hurt the competitiveness of local producers. On the other hand, it just extrapolates the market pattern to the political and social realm. No wonder reactions against ""free markets'' can take totalitarian trends and the criticism of globalization borrows nationalistic and protectionist slogans.
As the United States continues to excel and become more recognized for its innovations, and other methods of networking, the more the world around us changes. Many other countries have already been influenced by our way of living and follow our way of life. Some countries benefit from adjusting their cultural standards to that of the United States. On the contrary, other countries believe that changing their unique style of living can alter or hurt their image and how that country is perceived.
In economical terms, these changes should provide large gains that can be divided among all participants in the globalizing economy as capital flows to those investment opportunities with the highest risk-adjusted rates of return, as goods and services are produced by those who have comparative advantage (Mr. Joe my Econ Professor) in them and as profit-maximizing behavior in privatized public services increases the efficiency of providing them. Reinforcing the effects of these "economic efficiency factors," rapid advances in information technology and computerization are greatly reducing the costs of global communications. Faster, easier and cheaper communications facilitate the organization of production on a multi-continental scale, and the rapid movement of huge volumes of capital among countries makes possible the rapid construction of new productive facilities in virtually any nation that welcomes them.
Now, "market capitalism" as the economic organization model and the technological feasibility of moving the information required to coordinate global markets are causing rapid changes in many people's lives. Great fortunes are created, of course, as world stock markets boom under the prospects of new global opportunities and declining costs of production. Many parts of the world have experienced rapid economic growth and increases in average living standards. But, growth has not been uniform for those participating in the global economy as Russia, Brazil and southeast Asian states experienced economic contractions in the late 1990s associated with reversals in international capital flows and resulting steep declines in international currency values. Further, some feel that massive inflows of foreign investment into developing countries cannot be effectively absorbed, especially as regards the protection of the environment and workers' rights since standards and enforcement mechanisms are not as well established in developing countries.
The primary targets of the anti-globalization movement have been the United States generally and the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), the International Monetary Fund ("IMF") and the World Bank, organizations seen by some as the enforcers of the "rules of globalization" and the rights of MNCs to the detriment of ordinary people. This loosely coordinated group of protesters has created a high profile by attempting to disrupt (with some success) WTO and World Bank meetings over the past year. The same information technology that facilitates global commerce makes it easy for anti-globalization forces to mobilize their followers.
In conclusion, globalization is becoming a way of life. The more knowledge that is passed and exchanged between two countries, the better off both countries will be. However, what I am expressing, is that the more you share or adapt to another country's way of living, the greater the chance for both country's to change their perception and how they live. Sharing and exchanging views, on how we live to other countries are what binds people of the world together. The more you understand the cultural ways of other countries, the better the bond you have with that country. Globalization is not primarily intended to change the cultural ways o how a country functions. Instead, it shows new ideas that a country might be interested in looking into to make better their own way of life. Globalization by itself is morally neutral. It can be good or bad, depending on the kind of content we give to it.
