Comments on: americanization of global culture

By: Titania

Titania — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:02:51 +0000

I think another evil of globalisation is that we have lost value for material products. We forget that things that we buy from Walmart, McDonald’s and Nike are NOT made to last anymore and are incresingly disposable. This is part of the evil of capitalistic consumerism. Consumerism is a mentality that fuels capitalism. Perhaps products are not made to last longer than 2 years. Just look at the ipod trend that so many are obsessed with. Ipod batteries run out of life after 2 years or so. The point I’m trying to make here is that it is not just that corporations should develop social responsibility but the educated like you and I should also realise the part we have to play in this viscious cycle of consumerism, the amount of waste we generate through following the latest trends and developments. It is the lost in value of things that we possess that we also have to curb, in other words, human greed. If we all try to fix what we have instead of opting the easier option of going out and simply buying a newer, better and sffordable one, perhaps we can slowly instill more purpose and value and appreciation to material possessions.

By: Manuel

Manuel — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:22:39 +0000

Juan, unless you have a strong reference of those accusations, like Coca Cola being responsible for killings, kidnap, and torture, you better prepare for a long-standing sue from the accuses

(and no, I don’t support the transnationals’ abusse of poor conditions)

I did my degree in sustainability and a lot of research on the matter, so I can tell that CSR is slowly being part of global corporation, and yes, it is for self-interest, so what? The way to change a system is assuring that good behaviour is rewarded and bad behaviour is punished. A real example is Talisman Energy Inc., which get out of Sudan because shareholders’ activism forced them out.

The basis of capitalism is the private property and free markets, with low -or none- government intervention. the exploitation of the poor is part of the imperialism that came after, and you can read Adam Smith for hours and not find a single reference to exploitation.

Grassroots activist’s role is inform the public of misbehaviour so the public can vote with their wallets if they support a company that is using sweatshops in Bangladesh, but again, bashing for the sake of bashing only affects our own credibility.

By: Juan

Juan — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:05:11 +0000

Discredit the hypothesis, there is no hypothesis to begin with. Social responsibility does not exist in the vocabulary of the corporations. Why is it that corporations such as Nike contribute 7.7 million dollars after controversies arise? They do not do it out of concern for their fellow human being, it is out of self interest to keep negative ads from condemning them. In order to ensure the social responsibility, corporations have to have a responsibility transcending the maximization of shareholder value, furthermore we have to analyze what are the implications for those involved. To have “social responsibility” we must first define exactly what it is and when does the corporation begin to act socially responsible? Is it like Nike, after they are being condemned for child exploitation that they begin to have supposed a social responsibility to the public? In order to have a responsibility to society, there has to exist “responsibility” and not self interest. Responsibility should come before self interest, my point is that to label corporations as being socially responsible is giving them too much credit, they do not have that responsibility in their agenda early on. Instead of labeling them socially responsible, they should be labeled responsibility to self interest. Are they going to provide better wages and working conditions to those people who work in sweatshops? The sole reason why corporations outsource their industry is exactly why they do not stay in the United States, and that is to not provide those luxuries.
Companies are now becoming more accountable, under the Alien Tort Claims Act, it allows citizens of any nationality to sue in US federal courts for violations of international rights or treaties, people are ensuring that they do not fall victim to their terrorist tac-tics.
Evidence, here you go: Coca-Cola violations:Human Rights Abuses: violent killings, kidnap and torture, water privatization, health violations, and discriminatory practices. Caterpillar violations:Human Rights Abuses: contracting with known violators of human rights, enabling house demolition, supplying equipment that kills Palestinian civilians and American peace activists. Chevron violations:environmental destruction, health violations, and violent killings. Dow Chemical violations:creation of chemical weapons, marketing poisonous chemicals, illegal dumping of toxins into populated areas, environmental destruction, health problems, death.
DYNCORP/CSC violations:causing health problems, environmental devastation and death; endangering lives; physically abusing individuals; sex trafficking.KBR (Kellogg, Brown, and Root): A Subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation:Overcharging and providing unnecessary services on taxpayer’s dollar, bribery, exploiting third country nationals. Monsato: Displacement, health violations, and child labor. Nestle USA:Abusive child labor, repression of worker rights, aggressive marketing of harmful products, violation of national health and environmental laws. Now you tell me where is there social responsibility?

By: juan

juan — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:02:02 +0000

Abaddon: I think you have a solid argument there. I believe the obsession that some modern corporations have with profits at the expense of their negative influence on their medium must be exposed constantly. Until they change. Ultimately their value to society is much less than the profits they generate because one way or another we must pay for the damages, be them environmental or social.

Juan: The premise of the post is that “maybe” social responsibility is becoming a factor into making business decisions. If you can prove otherwise, go ahead. Don’t discredit the hypothesis without arguments.

marjorie: any chance you could send me the information about that documentary?

Stuart: while I’m not sure if you make that assertion about capitalism with any authority on the matter, I do remember reading somewhere about the need for social classes in order to sustain the system. Check my post “pro-globalization”. It has to do with economies of scale.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:42:13 +0000

The concept of capitalism requires some form of exploitaion of a people. When the industrial revolution began, it was the factory workers, not much has changed except where the factory workers are. Saying that Wal Mart has saved “x” number from poverty, how many have been subjected to exploitation because of poverty. The reason Wal Mart can afford not to unionize is simply due to the fact that they employ people on the edge of poverty, the fear of job loss when requesting health benefits is a powerful agent against those who can’t afford to live without their monthly income. What happens when they get hurt on the job? Wal Mart fires them for absence and hires someone just as desperate. The spread of this brand of capitalism only encourages exploitation and the widening of the chasm between the rich and poor.

By: marjorie

marjorie — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:41:54 +0000

Recently I saw a documentary on Tijuana and the huge “industrial park” area near the American border. What I saw was heavily polluted rivers and streams, a result from the plastics and electronics corporations that are the makers of our favorite cell phones, stereos and computers. These creeks in this industrialized area were actually safe to live near 25 to 30 years ago. The workers are almost all women, who left their villages and brought their children to support while they moved to the industrial area. The companies prefer women because of the size of their hands and dexterity. They get very low pay for working longer hours, six days a week and no health benefits for their children or themselves. This is how the profit$ that are distributed to the CEOs and wealthy shareholders throughout the global corporation’s financial world get to be so high. To me this is the same as the feudal system, when the wealthy landowners enslaved the peasants for thousands of years. What is going on here is Global Business as usual. The Mexican government is glad that a portion of its peasants have employment. To properly level the playing fieldm, wages and benefits should be more humane throughout the Third World before we can assume the corporations are working with any ethics.

By: Juan

Juan — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:09:21 +0000

Social responsibility? What social responsibility have they taken? Providing low wages to the poor is being responsible? I agree that those wages are more than what they had before, but to call corporations are being social responsible is going to far. If corporations wanted to be socially responsible they would be providing good working conditions, good wages, and would begin to conduct such business immediately. It is because they don’t want to provide these working conditions that they outsource the industry. It seems that it is an attempt to spin the reality of unethical business conduct.

By: Abaddon

Abaddon — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:36:24 +0000

Profit. Profit. Profit. Profit. Profit. Profit. Profit. Profit. Profit. That is what everyone seems to have in mind here, the question is not about how much profit any given corporation is receiving from its foreign investments. The question that we must start asking is how are the profits being put to use? When people hear of Starbucks, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, or other corporation open stores overseas, there is usually two major reactions to this: 1) it is an abomination that corporations are taking advantage of the poor, 2) it is a great deed that the corporations are doing to the poor. With such stores, factories, or any of the sort, the people no longer have to be dependent upon charity from NGO’s or from the UN or other nations, now the people are able to go and work and earn money. While the latter argument seems to be a coherent argument, people do not like to look at the conditions that the poor are having to work under. Mia points out that we must look at the wages that the people are getting paid (the poor). While I agree with her statement, I would like to expand on it by stating that not only must we, as people of the nation that allows for this expansion of globalization, look at the wages we must look at the treatment that every poor person is receiving. While there have been cases cited where corporations work the poor under harsh and inhumane conditions, the corporations have tried to “compensate” for their actions by raising their wages, yet nothing is done to improve their working conditions. As people who should be caring for others, which seems to be the American motto, we should not be looking into profit or into wages, rather we should be looking at the conditions that people are being forced to work under. I say forced because if the people do not enter the work field via the employment of the corporations they must look elsewhere, which employment is hard to come across in developing nations. As for ideology, Roman points out that it is the American way of life. That statement is incorrect, for the American way of life has been to help and provide a safe haven for individuals who ask for it, while at the same time we must look for wrongs and try to right them. The way of life that includes profit and marginalization is only the American Corporation way of life, not the people.

By: Mia

Mia — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:23:18 +0000

The idea of capatilism is not all that it’s cracke dup to be. Especially, given the fact that many countries that receive our McDonalds, Wal-Marts, and Starbucks, don’t share the same sense of culture that we do. Our values are different than that of another country, and that fact is usually ignored when we push these corporations into these countries. Beyond that, we as a society, need to take into account what the employs of these corporations are being paid, and consider something besides superficial profit.

By: Roman

Roman — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:13:56 +0000

When looking at this article i see everything that has made the United States what it is today. The coutry has always been a courty that takes, that is how we got you start from taking land from the native americans. Anyway the U.S.A is a capatalism and this means to make as much money as we can. By this we spread our products to other countries to try and max our profit. When countries over seas get a mcdonalds or walmart this is more then just letting a store into their country, this is allowing the spread of western ideology. I am not saying that the west ideology is a bad thing but this countries are allowing this by having these stores. Another issue that is a bi product of capatalism is cheap labor. United States based companys use other threed world countries for cheap labor creating a hole other issue.