When we talk about globalization, I occasionally think about history, because we have been here before. The last great era of globalization was at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, and one company that rode that wave was Singer, who got its sewing machines into most of the world. I imagine sweat shops still use some Singers.
   But the last time we had globalization, we still wound up trying to kill each other in World War I. Now we still maintain the idea that trade will conquer all—after all, that was the same theory behind the European Economic Community and the World Trade Organization.
   If we aren’t that much smarter as creatures this time round, what makes us think we’ll avoid annilhating ourselves?
   It might pay to examine why we wound up corrupting the globalization process last time. Then, it was political and karmic: companies wanted to make use of their trade to line their pockets. Familiar enough. In some cases, it was about supplying things the other nation did not want: forcing China to accept opium, rather than silver, for example. Now it’s about paying workers 25 cents an hour—if that. Countries built their empires to support trade, distancing themselves from the individual voices that were being trampled on. The rise of communism wasn’t about an ideology: it was about creating a voice that could be heard against the free-marketers. These days we choose to ignore folks dying of diseases that are curable, but the profit motive isn’t there to help them.
   I support the idea of one planet, one people (shall we abbreviate this 1P1P?)—I love the idea that someone in Syria might be my neighbour because the internet makes that all possible. And Skype, and even cheaper air travel. Globalization—if it weren’t such a word shamed by WTO protesters—would be my mantra.
   I would imagine most people feel the same way: that there is no harm in thinking of someone in another country as a fellow human being. The first thaw in the Cold War probably happened not with Reagan or Gorby, but with Phil Donahue, hosting a show where he connected, via satellite, everyday people from the United States and the Soviet Union, in their respective nations’ studios. One Russian said, ‘I would like to come over there and shake your hand.’ And we realized our “enemy” was much rather like us.
   Wherever you go, there is a version of “the American Dream”, whether you’re in Washington state or in the Palestinian territories. Everyone just wants to feel fulfilled and do their part in life.
   So what can be different? What can we do so we don’t reset the Matrix and wind up 100 years behind our time?
   This time, most of us have a voice. The internet, in the west at least, has been the great leveller. It might even become that in some régimes where it is gradually expanding: Red China, Myanmar, Iran. But it is up to the west to make the first move, to set a pattern about the internet’s usage, since we’ve had it longer.
   In my earlier post I offered the notion that the virtual world was a reflection of the real one, with the same geopolitical concerns. But why does it have to be? Why not create, with Web 2·0, a world where the promise of a single planet can be fulfilled and not wait till Web 3·0 or when we start another war?
   Through the web, we can unite individual buyers and sellers and philanthropists, breaking them out of the state structures that have so far prevented them from contacting and benefiting one another.
   While we are still bound by the laws of each nation, we can begin with very simple tasks. Merely contacting someone else and offering help would be a start. Forming groups using the web—nothing new, mind you—is another thing we can do. But the difference I am writing about is an attitudinal one: for the time being we are making one-on-one changes. However, if each of us sees each connection as one for our community, can the changes become greater?
   For instance, most of you reading this blog will have a contact in a foreign country, probably, say, through LinkedIn. We have, for instance, an idea for a business that we might already be doing in our nation. How about this: why not give them the same techniques and see where they wind up? Don’t charge them a royalty until they are on their own two feet, and then make it a reasonable percentage.
   My friend Denis Kenward, whom I met when interviewing him for Lucire, just flew off to India to teach artisans on two tsunami-affected islands his techniques for doing jewellery made from shells. Right now, the Indians have the machinery but do not know how to use them in order to create the effects on Denis’s pieces. Instead, they are doing each piece by hand and spending a day. Denis has gone to show them how he makes his works in 10 minutes.
   The man is getting next to nothing financially but the karmic reward must be huge. I don’t think he’s going to be after a royalty, but it is a small, internet-initiated event that can help a lot of people. Sure he had hassles with his visa: that is the real-world element. But the virtual world had the venture all mapped out first, and the real world just snapped into place. Intention and reality.
   The cynics might fear that the country receiving the intelligence will use it against the originator, but are these nations as selfish and immoral as that? Nine times out of ten—if not 95 out of 100—trust given is trust returned. We need to be secure about ourselves. We all want cooperation, not suspicion. And the world might just become a better place as a result of that.

Del.icio.us tags: globalization | globalism | philanthropy | free trade | commerce | karma | internet | web | networking Posted by Jack Yan, 00:04  permalink

comments

Post a Comment  Links to this post