For when we talk about the spreading power and influence of globalization, arent we really referring to the spreading economic and military might of the US?
In the US, most progressives start to see the differences between internationalism and economic globalization.
It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity.
We have to choose between a global market driven only by calculations of short-term profit, and one which has a human face.
We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world's people share the benefits of globalization.
Well, we see an increasingly weaker labor movement as a result of the overall assault on the labor movement and as a result of the globalization of capital.
I'm generally in favor of economic globalization. Having said that, it doesnt always work and does not immediately work in the interest of all. There are sufferers.
Globalization is a complex issue, partly because economic globalization is only one part of it. Globalization is greater global closeness, and that is cultural, social, political, as well as economic.
[Globalization] has enriched the world scientifically and culturally and benefited many people economically as well.
The myth of the inevitability of economic globalization is based largely on the work of Milton Friedman, and easily the most underreported story of our time is that the current economy proves Friedman flatly wrong.
Power that controls the economy should be in the hands of elected representatives of the people instead of an industrial oligarchy