[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Re: ::fibreculture:: R is for Refuge...

[david turgeon <david.t@steam.ca>]

phil,

just thought i would comment on your tirade!

>In any case, all major wars through history have been a result of what is now
>being called "free" trade, not because of trade barriers or, heaven forbid,
>self sufficient social units, whether nations or neighbourhoods.
>
>The crazed, frenetic, world-wide demands for "free trade" by politicians
>and industry are nothing more than admissions of weakness, paranoia,
>failure and childish dependency. Such demands display an utter ignorance of
>what is wrong with the world, and what has killed every civilization in
>history.

indeed, & well said.

but putting aside the meaningless claim that "putting up more barriers to 
trade, as some in the 'anti-globalisation' camp demand, will only lead to 
more asylum seekers" (as no implicit correlation exists between trade & 
asylum seeking), i believe the parallel between free trade & free migration 
to be worth investigating, as this is one of the points i have argued with 
myself about in the past months.

if (for the sake of argument) there _must_ be free trade, then i believe 
there must be free migration.  in essence this is how i envision the 
european community at its best (the hard facts are somewhat different, but 
let's paint large brush strokes for now).  one may exchange goods & 
currency freely, & one is free to go & settle wherever they please within 
the EEC borders.  to me this is the counter balance that makes (would make) 
the system work & ensure a thorough "flattening effect" (rather than an 
increasing concentration of wealth which is the product of free trade on 
its own).

of course, if there are borders around europe, then that is no good for the 
people living outside of it, & we're back at square one again.

i believe the above to be nearly self-evident & historically verifiable.  a 
similar thinking is what is tying together large countries such as the USA 
(they are "united states" are they not?).  but the fact remains, as the 
so-called "globalization" increases, there is no increase of immigration in 
rich countries; in fact, there is more of an organized hate match in the 
media against immigrants in general.  which i believe to be totally 
ludicrous!  if mr. middle class man wishes to exploit (be it oh so 
indirectly, we haven't chosen our imperialist system have we?) sir banana 
farmer in a southern country he doesn't even know (& that i don't even 
know) then would he please be coherent with himself & grant sir banana 
farmer the right to establish himself in his country freely & without 
scorn.  anything less amounts to war; there is no other word for it.  (or 
maybe there is: exploitation, slavery...  which amount to a form of war.)

(but of course, seeing as this connection is not usually made by the 
mythical "common man", we are guessing, probably correctly, that there is 
pression for the press to, you know, show the facts, just don't spell out 
the connection.  & thus we uncover yet another misquestioned lie about "the 
Good of Free Trade".)

hence my belief that "anti-globalization" == anti-war.

have a nice day
~ david


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold