Mozno je to moc dlhe na uverejnovanie na tomto fore. Mozno vas unudim k smrti. Ved uvidime...
Globalisation is one of the most discussed issues of our postmodern society. It is an inevitable result of various factors, such as developing new information technologies, increasing of free market or expansion of big multinational corporations. Because I wanted to be consistent I looked for a definition of the word globalisation in Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and I found two explanations. First one is that globalisation means the increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries. The second is that globalisation means, when available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world. In my work I decided to concentrate on some specific issues of this complex process.
Now let´s look on the second definiton and think about it for a while. I spent last summer in Spain. During my stay in Barcelona I was drinking the same Coca-Cola, eating the same Mars chocolate bars and even watching almost the same television advertising as if I was at home. Other food-stuffs may be had unknown names, but the taste was somehow familiar. May be it was because those things were actually made by the same big corporations as those in Slovakia or because they are all using the same chemicals to add the right flavour to their products. I am sad about this world spreading conformity. The interesting traditional goods and cultural specifics of diferent parts of the world are losing in this uneven battle with rich multinational corporations. I can even imagine the mega billboard calling out: „Lipton tea – Your pleasure for every day.“ situated right next to Darjeeling tea estate somewhere in Northern India.
Another aspect of globalisation is its social and cultural influence. This type of influence is, as almost anything today, determined by ammount of money in your pocket. Propagation of Hollywood films and American pop music is so strong that people all over the world realy think that this is the right kind of entertainment for them. Superficiality is more appreciated than deepness, because people are overloaded with things that have no value, no content. We can describe this as Americanisation of global culture. People start to loose their sense for real values in art, because they are intended not to think. Another consequence of this is that the inner emotional universe and values of people are becomming similiar and poor. Traditional art is replaced by a common american standard. This cultural influence can be used to manipulate people all over the world. On the other hand with contemporary information technologies we can find interesting things, from distant parts of the world in a split of a second. We can enjoy traditional african music from convenience of our houses and we don´t have to travel thousands of kilometers across the see. It is also possible to use different cultural influences to create something new and interesting. For example composer and alto saxophonist Steve Coleman – one of my favourite artists – studied traditional music of West Africa and joined it with American jazz tradition.
We can look on process of globalisation also in terms of global problems. In the past few decades many new global threats have emerged. For example epidemy of AIDS or cancer, global terrorism, threat of global warming (the greenhouse effect) and other enviromental problems can´t be solved without coordinated effort of whole international community. The greenhouse effect is one of the most dangerous global threats of early future. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain warns that failure to act swiftly on global warming would have cataclysmic effect on global economy and says Britain is stepping up efforts to get other nations involved. A few weeks ago I saw in TV news report commissioned by his government that predicts apocalyptic effects from climate change. Report estimates that success in slowing carbon emissions could bring savings to world economy in range of $2.5 trillion a year; emphasis seems aimed at few industrial nations, including United States, that refuse to join initiatives like Kyoto Protocol, citing economic reasons.
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to signatory nations. It was opened for signature in December 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force in February 16, 2005. The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". We have to say that USA is not the only country, that refused to ratify – China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide) and India were also exempted from Kyoto Protocol.
Now let’s take a deeper insight on our first definition of globalisation mentioned at the beginning of my work - „The increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries“. The large companies – corporations are the real ruling force of our time.
A corporation is a legal entity which, while being composed of natural persons, exists completely separately from them. Corporation is made for one and only purpose – profit. At the top of its hierarchical, pyramidal structure is board of directors which governs a corporation on the behalf of the stockholders. The stockholders elect directors and the board of directors usually elects the highest operative managment of corporation at the head with president of corporation.
The chefs of corporations belong to so called elite of society. In most cases they are members of privileged state since the day of birth. With the help of wealthy parents they gradute on expensive private high schools and prestige universities such as Harvard (particulary Harvard Business School), Princeton, Yale, Cornell or Grotton. Already in the early years at school they are building the sense of own primacy. In 1969, when American university students demonstrated against the Vietnam war, Harvard students rather played tenis.
A typical president of corporation is male, of course white, but not just an ordinary but often WASP. WASP means White Anglo Saxon Protestant – offspring of orignal puritan settlers. 85 % of the highest captains of business are of protestant religion. Chefs of corporations are mostly konservative and 70 – 80 % consider themselves republicans. The main job of highest mangers are financial operations with foreign capital and they are taking it as a chance for own beneficiation.
When corporations want to reach their goals a good conections are required. The most valuable connections are those which reach the highest positions. Just in 1975 the number of highly placed members of Pentagon which achieved the control positions in military industry increased of 65 % and reached 620 persons. In 1976 it was alredy 1044 persons. Charles Erwin Wilson, the head of General motors was United States Secretary of Defense from 1953 to 1957 under president Eisenhower. During the Vietnam War this post performed a former president of the Ford corporation Robert McNamara (1961-1968). He resigned that position to become a President of World Bank (1968-1981). A high-ranking official of Standard Oil of California J.McCown become a director of CIA and then returned to business as one of the highest managers of ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph). In 1970 ITT owned of 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Classified documents released by the CIA in 2000 suggest that ITT financially helped opponents of Salvador Allende's government prepare a military coup. On September 28, 1973, ITT's headquarters in New York City, was bombed by protesters for alleged involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile. It is clear that US governament and corporations formed almost a personal union. Corporations infiltrated all important spheres of influence. They are now fully equiped for absolute controll of society, for reaching their one and only goal – profit over people. Global Corporations are behind the new philosophy of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time - it refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit. Associated initially with Reagan and Thatcher, for the past two decades neoliberalizm has been the dominant global political economic trend adopted by political parties. These parties and the policies they enact represent the immediate interests of extremely wealthy investors and less than one thousand large corporations. To the contrary, neoliberal initiatives are characterized as free market policies, that encourage private enterprise and consumer choice, reward personal responsibility and entreprenurial initiative, and undermine the dead hand of the incompetent, bureaucratic and parasitic government, that can never do good even if well intended, which it rarely is. A generation of corporate-financed public relations efforts has given these terms and ideas a near sacred aura. As a result these ideas are invoked to racionalize anything from lowering taxes on enviromental regulations to dismantling public education and social welfare programs. Neoliberalism is “capitalism with the gloves off“. It represents an era in which business forces are stronger and more agressive, and face less organized opposition than ever before. It works best when there is formal democracy, but when the population is diverted from the information, acces, and public forums necessary for meaningfull participation in decision making.
For neoliberals profit making is the essence of democracy, and government that pursues antimarket policies is being antidemocratic, no matter how much informed popular support they might enjoy. Therefore it is best to restrict governments to the job of protecting private property and enforcing contracts, and to limit political debate to minor issues. The real matters of resource production and distribution and social organisation should be determined by market forces. Equiped with this understanding of democracy neoliberals like Milton Friedman had no qualms over the military overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected Allende government in 1973, because Allende was acting as a barrier for business. Allende's program included advancement of workers' interests; a thoroughgoing implementation of agrarian reform; the reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors; a foreign policy of "international solidarity" and national independence; and a new institutional order (the "people's state" or "poder popular"), including the institution of a unicameral congress. The Popular Unity platform also called for nationalization of foreign (U.S.) ownership of Chile's major copper mines. A new Constitution was approved by a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite characterized by the absence of registration lists, on September 11, 1980, and General Pinochet became President of the Republic for an 8-year term. The right-wing military government pursued decidedly laissez-faire economic policies of free market. After fifteen years of often brutal and savage dictatorship – all in the name of democratic free market – formal democracy was restored in 1989 with a constitution that made it vastly more dificult, if not impossible to fight against business-military domination of corporations. Democracy is permissible as long as the control of business is off-limits to popular deliberation or change, i.e. so long as it isn’t democracy.
The economic consequences of corporate policies have been the same just about everywhere: a massive increase in social and economic inequality a marked increase in severe deprivation for poorest nations and disastrous global enviroment.
People still believe that America’s victory in the cold war was a victory for set of political and economic principles, democracy and free market, but what is presented by pro-business ideologues as the natural expansion of free markets across borders is in fact quite the opposite. Globalisation is the result of powerfull governments, especially that of the United States, pushing trade deals and other accords down the throats of the world’s people to make it easier for corporations and the wealthy to dominate the economies of nations around the world without having obligations to the peoples of those nations.
Noam Chomsky is the leading intellectual figure in the world today, in the battle for democracy and against neoliberalism. In the 1960s, Chomsky was a prominent U.S. critic of the Vietnam war and more broadly he became perhaps the most trenchant analyst of the ways U.S. foreign policy undermines democracy, quashes human rights and promotes the interests of wealthy few.
Just a few weeks ago I saw an interesting film called The Yes Men. It is a documentary about a group of activists that set up a parody of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) website at the domain GATT.org (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). Some people mistook it for the real thing and wrote in with questions about all sorts of trade matters. Finally, this guys found themselves invited to conferences to speak as the organization they opposed. They scrounged up their savings, bought plane tickets, and went. This was the beginning of The Yes Men. Andy and Mike - a couple of semi-employed, middle-class (at best) activists with only thrift-store clothes and no formal economics training - posed as spokespeople for the WTO. As the World Trade Organization, Andy and Mike delivered shocking satires of WTO policy to audiences of so-called “experts.” . At a university in Plattsburgh, New York the WTO proposed that to solve global hunger, the poor should have to eat hamburgers and then recycle them up to ten times. And at an accounting conference in Sydney, Australia, the WTO announced that in light of all its mistakes, it would shut itself down, refounding as an organization whose goals were not to help corporations, but rather to help the poor and the environment. It was very funny to see the faces of those elite economists and business experts after the Yes Men’s shocky discourse.
The impacts of globalisation process are widespread. It is the duty of all people to concern about the main issues and threats of contemporary world, such as enviromental problems, global warming, pollution, extinction of species, social and economic inequality and so on. Large corporations acts only according to the rule of profit. That is why people should carefuly observe their decisions. Otherwise people will loose their vote on global decision making and will be just a puppets in hands of greats.


Bibliography:

Cambridge dictionaries online, website:

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Chomsky, Noam - Profit Over People, Neoliberalism and Global Order, Seven Stories Press, New York, 1998

Epštejn, S.I. - Kapitáni Veľkého Biznisu, Nakladateľstvo Pravda, Žilina, 1984

Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia, websites:

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Predpokladal som to. Som si dokonca myslel, ze sa to nikomu ani nebude chciet citat, takze si ma nakoniec celkom prijemne prekvapil.

No si sikovny. To sa musi uznat.

No neviem..
Asi bolo dobre mat nejaku medzinarodnu instituciu, ktora by kontrolovala mozne zneuzivanie postavenia u nadnarodnych spolocnosti medzinarodnom obchode. Ktovie, ci je ludstvo schopne taku organizaciu vytvorit. Dovtedy nam zostavaju hluciky idealistov rozbijajuci mekdonaldy.
skuste

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

V podstate s tebou suhlasim - Je to gulas.

Asi ti usla pointa - Nieje to odborny clanok z The Economist, ale skolsky referat . Dokonca to nieje ani referat z ekonomie ci medzinarodneho prava, ale z beznej anglictiny (a aj tak je to dost odflaknute).

Niesom ziaden odbornik na globalizaciu. Vychadzal som z toho co som v danom momente vedel, pripadne sa docital.

Dovod preco som to sem vobec daval je v tom, ze som mal pocit, ze globalizacia je celkom zaujimava tema. Kedze som nechcel zacinat novu temu s dementnou otazkou typu: "Co si myslite o globalizacii?" a pod., prislo mi celkom vhod, ze som zrovna pred casom robil nieco na tuto temu do skoly.

Filip: Dokonca sa ani nesnazis globalizaciu nejako pomenovat a analyzovat co to vlastne je, co je predpokladom a co je dosledkom. Uplne si to pomiesal a pozamienal.

RV: Rad sa necham poucit.

Kua filip jedine co ti vytknem je asi toto: tvoja kritika by mala byt trochu konkretnejsia s konkretnymi argumentami a pokial sa da, mala by byt konstruktivna.

Kazdopadne myslim, ze moja praca je na vyssej urovni, ako tvoja kritika. Uz som mal tu cest sa oboznamit s tvojim ideologickym pozadim. Vdaka, ale o tvoje pozadie nemam zaujem, pokial ho budes podavat v tejto podobe. Toto je kritika a la vytrcanie zadkou na nepriatela, bakaneho lavicoveho extremistu.

-ja niesom ani lavicovy, ani extremista, ani nepriatel a dokonca ani bakany

filip:

citácia:

Najskor kritiku prijmes, suhlasis s nou a priznas sa k tomu, ako si to vlastne cele spiskal. Potom si precitas odo mna nejake prispevky niekde inde. Znepaci sa Ti moj nazorovy profil a zhrozis sa, ze si vlastne suhlasil s nejakym Tvojim triednym nepriatelom, ktory si dovolil kritizovat Tvoje veldielo.

Mylis sa, ked si pozorne precitas moju prvu odpoved, stoji tam, ze niesom spokojny s tvojou kritikou. Snazil som sa ti dat najavo, ze som ochotny diskutovat, ale vo vecnejsej rovine. Dokonca som priznal, ze sa nejedna o ziadne veldielo, takze sa nesnaz robit tu zo mna nejakeho nafukaneho blbca. Cakal som, ze ponuknes konkretnejsie argumenty a diskusia bude pokracovat, ale kedze sa tak nestalo, tak som usudil, ze si jeden z tych ideologicky podmienenych velkohubych kritikov bez argumentov. Tvojim dalsim prispevkom ma o tom zial len presviedcas. Nebolo mojim umyslom vyvolavat zbytocne vasne - prispevok mal byt podnetom k diskusii, akurat, ze tvoja kritika k diskusii nevedie, je to len vylev tvojich osobnych pocitov. Takze opakujem: niesom odbornik na globalizaciu, pri tvorbe tohoto referatu som vychadzal z mojich momentalnych znalosti. Nad KONSTRUKTIVNOU kritikou som ochotny sa zamysliet pripadne prehodnotit svoje nazory.

filip:

citácia:

Nahodou, som bol uplne konkretny: Dokonca sa ani nesnazis globalizaciu nejako pomenovat a analyzovat co to vlastne je, co je predpokladom a co je dosledkom. Uplne si to pomiesal a pozamienal.

Vychadzal som z dvoch slovnikovych definicii. Myslim, ze cely ten referat sa zaobera roznymi aspektami globalizacie.

filip:

citácia:

Na celom referate je zrejme, ze je spraveny sposobom Copy Paste z roznych zdojov, pomiesane bez vodiacej myslienky.

Toto je krasny priklad nekonstruktivnej kritiky z tvojej strany.

Takze este raz polopatistickejsie:
Pridcinou filipovej chabej argumentacie a evidentne prilisnej citovej angazovanosti ohladom mojho prispevku je:
1. ideologicky podmienena tvorba filipovho nazoru
2. paranoja (filip opakujem, ze ja niesom tvoj nepriatel ani ziaden lavicovy extremista)
3. neprijemna skusenost s lavicovymi extremistami v detstve
4. pad na hlavu v detstve
5. nedostatok rodicovskej lasky
6. filipov otec je prezidentom spolocnosti SHELL
7. filip je PR manager spolocnosti SHELL
8. filipa ma kazdy rad a tak sa rozhodol, ze si urobi nepriatela aspon z Roba V
9. ...


Filip, sak sa bavme ako ludia...

Super. Konecne rozumna rec. Rad urobim ciaru.
----------------------------------------------------------
Vymedzenie pojmu globalizacia nieje jednoduche. Jednoduchsie je asi vymedzit ho len ciastocne v niektorom uzsom vyzname pretoze sa vzdy da chapat extenzivne. Ja som sa oprel o dve slovnikove definicie, ktore je tiez nutne chapat extenzivne, teda v sirsich suvislostiach:
1. Globalizacia v zmysle narastu svetoveho obchodu hlavne prostrednictvom velkych nadnarodnych korporacii, ktore produkuju a predavaju produkty v roznych krajinach.
2. Globalizacia v zmysle, ked sa dostupne produkty a sluzby pripadne socialne a kulturne vplyvy postupne stavaju podobnymi vsade na svete.

Predpoklady som tam tiez niektore uviedol napr. technicky pokrok, lobbing, predpokladom podla mna je napr. aj svetova ekonomicka a mocenska dominancia jedneho statu (v sucasnosti USA), hromadenie kapitalu v rukach korporacii (to je zaroven aj dosledok) atd.

Dosledky:

NEGATIVA: vykoristovanie ludi krajin tretieho sveta, prehlbovanie rozdielov medzi bohatymi a chudobnymi, koncentracia moci a kapitalu v rukach maleho poctu ludi, devastacia zivotneho prostredia (a z toho plynuce nasledky ako napr. sirenie chorob v dosledku priemyselneho znecistenia), vymieranie zivocisnych druhov, podkopavanie demokratickych principov v state a hrozba tvorby tzv. unifikovanej elity (riziko stupa, cim viac sa obmedzuje pocet mocnych), tvorba globalnej masovej kultury diktovanej napr. Hollywoodom a MTV,...

POZITIVA: tvorba novych pracovnych miest, stret kultur -> vznik novych umeleckych smerov a zanrov, zavadzanie istych standardov kvality vyrobkov (certifikacia), vacsia moznost vyberu produktov,...

napisal som namatkovo co ma napadlo

Ostanme zatial este iba pri definicii, OK?

1. Sa zameriava iba na oblast obchodu a ekonomicky a vyzdvihuje ulohu velkych spolocnosti. Ja osobne s nou nesuhlasim (subj. nazor). Ako neskor uvideme, pravdepodobne je to skor dosledok.

2. Ano, s druhou suhlasim, ktora vravi skoro to iste, co moja vlastna (nikde neopisana, v hlave zrodena):

"Zmensenie sveta" a z toho vyplyvajuce dosledky sa ludovo nazyva globalizacia. Pod zmensenim sveta myslim najma:
- skratenie casu prenosu - informacii, tovaru, osob
- umoznenie tohto prenosu - politicka a ekonomicka sloboda
- realizovatelnost tohto prenosu - je cenovo dostupny

Nie vsetky tri zlozky su vsade rovnomerne a rovnako zastupene, ale vsetky su potrebne na to, aby sa svet zmensil a teda, aby nastala globalizacia.

Z tejto definicie vidiet, ze najvacsi podiel na vzniku globalizacie maju: technicky a technologicky rozvoj, isty stupen demokracie a slobody trhu, isty ekonomicky potencial (bohatsvo).

Takze globalizacia nie je ziadne sprisahanie ale urcity stav, do ktoreho sa spolocnost dostala urcitym vyvojom, splnenim urcitych predpokladov. To znamena, ze globalizacia nie je proces (a vonkoncom nie je riadeny proces) a nie je ani ciel. Je to stav!

-----

Uz si pochopil, co som od Teba ocakaval? Pouzivanie vlastneho rozumu a nie iba opisovanie hluposti z internetu. Nic v zlom

Ides!

filip:

citácia:

"Zmensenie sveta" a z toho vyplyvajuce dosledky sa ludovo nazyva globalizacia. Pod zmensenim sveta myslim najma: - skratenie casu prenosu - informacii, tovaru, osob - umoznenie tohto prenosu - politicka a ekonomicka sloboda - realizovatelnost tohto prenosu - je cenovo dostupny

S tym suhlasim. Zmensenie sveta - to je polopatisticke strucne a jasne. Pride to na um asi kazdemu, kto pocuje slovo globalizacia (aj mne to prislo). Odrazky su tiez fajn, aj ked politicka a ekonomicka sloboda mozu byt len formalne:
- aku ekonomicku slobodu maju 14 rocne deti pracujuce v tovarni Nike v Bangladeshi, ked si z platu nemozu dovolit ani stravu tri krat denne?
- aku politicku slobodu maju obcania, ak ich voleni zastupcovia v skutocnosti zastupuju zaujmy uzkej mocenskej skupiny?


Este co sa tyka informacii a pristupu k nim - informacie mozno podavat pripadne nepodavat aj ucelovo, aby to vyhovovalo urcitym skupinam. Konkretny pripad (aby si si nemyslel, ze som nejaky paranoik co si vymysla konspiracne teorie) -
priklad č.1 - medialna masaz americkeho naroda pred invaziou do Iraku.
priklad č.2 - informovanost Americanov ohladom anexie Vychodneho Timoru Indonesiou v r.1975, ked noviny o konflikte takmer nepisali. Vlada US dodavala Indonezii zbrane a podporila ju aj politicky. Zomrelo viac ako 200 000 ludi. Podla Chomskeho len 23 velkych korporacii vlastni vacsinu americkeho medialneho trhu - dobry predpoklad na moznost ucelovej manipulacie verejnej mienky.

filip:

citácia:

Takze globalizacia nie je ziadne sprisahanie ale urcity stav, do ktoreho sa spolocnost dostala urcitym vyvojom, splnenim urcitych predpokladov. To znamena, ze globalizacia nie je proces (a vonkoncom nie je riadeny proces) a nie je ani ciel. Je to stav!

Ja som o ziadnom sprisahani nehovoril. Snazim sa poukazat na rizika. Svet pred 100 rokmi bol menej globalizovany ako dnes, pred 50 rokmi bol uz o nieco globalizovanejsi a ak o 10 rokov bude mat kazdy druhy Slovak doma internet, svet bude zasa o nieco globalizovanejsi. Takze z tohoto pohladu sa to da chapat ako proces, ci nie?

filip:

citácia:

Uz si pochopil, co som od Teba ocakaval? Pouzivanie vlastneho rozumu a nie iba opisovanie hluposti z internetu. Nic v zlom

Tu mi trochu krivdis. Do tej prace som vlozil aj vela zo seba. Napisal som to za necele dva dni a kedze niesom zrovna najsnazivejsi student, nevyhol som sa aj nejakemu tomu kopirovaniu (dnes to robi kazdy studak). Napriek tomu si nemyslim, ze je to cele copy pastovina a ak by som si myslel, ze su to hluposti, asi by som ich tam nepisal, nemyslis? Tebe sa moze zdat, ze nieco je hlupost mne sa to tak vidiet nemusi. V tom je caro diskusie - mame moznost konfrontovat svoje nazory, popripade sa niecomu priucit.

Vidim, ze som Ti krivdil, ked som tvrdil, ze si to opisal. Ale stale si nerozumieme a kto vie, ci si porozumieme.

Co maju/ma s definiciou globalizacie (a mozno aj so samotnou globalizaciou, to sa uvidi neskor, ked sa budeme bavit o nasledkoch):
- pracujuce deti kdekolvek
- neporiadni politici alebo neporiadne politicke systemy
- medialna masaz kohokolvek
- informovanost kohokolvek

Prosim, ak maju, pokusme sa to dako rovno zapracovat do tej definicie.

Uz som ti raz posmesne pisal, ze si zabudol este na dazdove pralesy, azijsku ekonomiku a stav ludskych prav, cesky sarkazmus, na belgickeho pedofila Dutroux, kvalitu cokolad Nestle a na zdruzenie OPEC. A Ty si nedas pokoj a vytiahnes deti v Bangladezi, Vychodny Timor a Chomskeho...

Prepac, prosim, ak to tak vyznelo, ze som Ta obvinil, ze tvrdis, ze globalizacia je sprisahanie. Zdoraznil som to iba tak vseobecne, lebo sa to casto tvrdi. Tvrdim, ze globalizacia nie je proces, ale stav. Ty si co myslis? Je globalizacia proces alebo stav?

K tym Tvojim pripomienkam a kritike jednotlivych negativnych spolocenskych, politickych a cojaviem akych javov: Ved som tvrdil ze: Nie vsetky tri zlozky su vsade rovnomerne a rovnako zastupene, ale vsetky su potrebne na to, aby sa svet zmensil a teda, aby nastala globalizacia. Ale ako to zapracovat do definicie? Budeme to komplikovat a tvrdit, ze plati 1 and 2 and 3, kde 1 az 3 dosahuju hodnoty v intervaloch 50% až 100%? Kludne, ako vravim si na tahu.

U negacii je to inak, vskaze?

Globalizacia by nenastala, keby, nastal aspon jeden z tychto javov:
- sme na dialkovu komunikaciu pouzivali dymove signaly a bubny, lietali by sme v balonoch a tovar by sme prapravovali vozmi tahanymi volmi (ale niekde to tak stale je, uznavam)
- boli uzavrete hranice, cenzura, telefon by si mohol pouzit iba v pripade poziaru, vysoke ochranne cla, ekonomicke embarga, na kupu tlaciarne by bolo treba specialne povolenie, ktore by dostal malokto (ale niekde to tak stale je, uznavam)
- minuta telefonickeho hovoru do USA by stala 200,- Sk, keby najlacnejsia letenka do do Pekingu stala 200 000,- Sk, keby transport kamionu s Warasavy do Bratislavy stal 100 nasobne, ako stoji (ale niekde to tak stale je, uznavam)

-----

Zatial sa stale bavime o definicii globalizacie a o pricinach jej vzniku a ci je globalizacia proces, alebo stav. OK? Este ani slovo o jej nasledkoch.