Jihad vs McWorld

How the planet is both falling apart and coming together and what this means for democracy.

...a single map unites both sides of the same coin, and demonstrates that what capitalism and fundamentalism have in common is a distaste for democracy. For both, in different ways, lay seige to the nation-state itself--heretofore the only guarantor of conditions that have permitted democracy to flourish.

Democracy may well fall victim to a twin-pronged attack; by a global capitalism run rampant whose essential driving force is nihilistic, at its root destructive of traditional values as it seeks to maximize profit-taking at virtually any moral, religious, or spiritual cost; and by religious, tribal, and ethnic fanatics whose various creeds are stamped by intolerance and a rage against each other.

The first scenario (Jihad) holds out the grim prospect of a retribalization of large parts of humanity by war and bloodshed, a threatened balkanization of nation states in which culture is pitted against culture-a virtual Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of independence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and mutuality: against technology, against pop culture, against integrated markets, against modernity itself.

The second scenario (McWorld) paints the future in shimmering pastels, a busy portrait of onrushing economic, technological, and corporate forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize people everywhere with fast music, fast computers, and fast food--with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous theme park: a veritable McWorld tied together by communications, information, entertainment, and commerce.

The paradox at the core is that the tendencies of both Jihad and McWorld are at work, both visible sometimes in the same country at the same instant. Jihad pursues a bloody politics of identity, while McWorld seeks seek a bloodless economics of profit.

Belonging by default to McWorld, everyone is compelled to enroll in Jihad. But no one is any longer a citizen and without citizens, how can there be a democracy?

Thus is the description written inside the paper cover of the book, Jihan vs McWorld, written in 1995 by Benjamin R. Barber, Whitman Professor of Sciences at Rutgers University and director of the Walt Whitman center of Rutgers. He is the author of numerous books, including An Aristrocracy of Everyone ans Strong Democracy. He writes regularly for many publications, including Harper's, The New Republic, and The Atlantic Monthly.

I well realize this thread covers a book and may very well be moved to the Books, Movies, and T V Shows Discussions Forum (where it will quickly die lol) but I thought the idea of the book, and the fact that it was published 8 years ago might make those of you who read this forum want to comment on its contents and our present situation.

What is to become of Iraq?

[ 04-02-2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

[Timber Loftis]

This guy's theory is wiggity-wack at its base. Capitalism and globalization do not undo the nation state, but merely make nation-states interdependent. Just like the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did not undo Virginia, merely let it pass off some of its sovereign decisions to a federal government, the WTO/GATT, IMF, and World Bank do not undo member nations but merely demand they start working together in some respects.

Moreover, even if the national sovereignty is destroyed, citizenship is not. For instance, if Maryland started ignoring the needs of the citizenry (e.g. drivers licenses) it would become incumbent on the federal system to fill the gaps. So, the citizenship of the Maryland citizen would simply become rolled into his/her US citizenship. Some governmental entity must perform the service, you see - the people demand it.

As an example, one of the biggest bitch-fests with the WTO surrounds its refusal to account for LABOR concerns. Well, the WTO's answer is "our mandate is only to ensure free trade, and we can't address labor." But, over time the pressures a free market puts on other concerns, such as labor, will force this issue to a head: either the WTO/GATT will be amended to address labor concerns or a separate treaty (possibly UN) will be undertaken to set up a body to address those concerns. The people will demand it. (If I wanted to be really detailed here I could analgize this exact notion to the history of labor in America, and talk about unions and the Supreme Court's Lochner decision and its progeny, but this post is growing very long already).

In short, the loss of the right to place tarriffs on imports is not the loss of national identity, nor is it the undermining of citizenship.

In fact, the IMF encourages (some say too heavy-handily) nations which must take loans to abide by more democratic social AND market practices.

So, this guy's wiggity-wackness comes in two flaws: (1) Capitalism and globilization will destroy the nation-state, and (2) thus capitalism and globilization will destroy citizenship.

In fact, I submit for your review the notion that no political and economic systems are more closely related than democracy (or, more astutely, representative republic) and free market capitalism (or, more astutely, the form of socialistic capitalism that truly exists in the world today).

[Azred]

Originally posted by Lil Lil: What is to become of Iraq?

Well, a provisional government will be set up, then general elections will probably happen within 2 years. I cannot say exactly what the Iraqi people want for their future, but I suspect that on a personal level the Iraqi people want to begin enjoying the economic and technological advances available in the West while on a national level there will be a lot of cultural inertia resisting modernization or assimilation into the West. Wasn't that obvious? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seriously, though...the Iraqi people will get exactly what they want, be that good or bad. That is most of the problem with many parts of the world having troubles--people have what they want. If the Israelis and the Palestinians wanted peace they would have it.

re: the book. It would be rather depressing to think that we have only those two outcomes for the future. Is there no room for personal choice? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]