Globalization, as a phenomenon, within all its aspects, has been controversial in the past three decades and has attracted many analyses, books, and debates just as postmodernism was a form of a novelty and controversial issue of the 1980s of the last century, which has continued even today, in the first decades of the XXI Century.
A large number of theorists emphasize that the world is organized by the acceleration of globalization, which strengthens the dominance of the world capitalist society. We can argue about this, both scientifically and from the everyday, human aspect, and especially within the former socialist countries where people are publicly accused of disintegration within the system of disrupted values over the last three decades only because of that:
- They are not members of one or those political options – not any of the political party;
- They are not resourceful in legal, hypocritical theft in the style of “nobody is guilty because he does not know”;
- They do not want to accept as idols people from black media chronicles.
Modern capitalism, in my opinion, although I myself was part of those who had written (in the mid-eighties of the last century) in that non-existent, single-party system — “Gulliver’s Prediction, the Liliputian Realization” — of the simulation of self-imposed taxes and never realized that for helping those who are in need there is nothing more than a realistic awareness of the power of the people on power, of the capital and manipulation that is implemented at the expense of the weak and insufficiently educated world. For those who defend global capitalism, and globalization marks the triumph of capitalism and its market economy, (who mentioned the crisis of 2008?) I recommend Michael Moore’s movie “Capitalism, Love Story”.
Discourses on globalization were initially polarized with pros and cons, praises and attacks. For critics, the term globalization covers the concept of global capitalism, and imperialism and is accused of being a different form of cover for global capitalism and markets in larger areas of the world and the sphere of life. In other words, capital does not know boundaries and wants to multiply by expanding, against the logic of respecting societies and the concepts of the societies it is focused on. For those who defend it, globalization is a continuation of modernization, and it is the power of progress, the increase of wealth, freedom, democracy, and happiness, and the champions of globalization represent it for the benefit of everyone as it generates fresh economic opportunities, political democratization, cultural diversity and the opening up towards a thrilling new world.
I do think that it wouldn’t be bad to contact the underdeveloped countries to confirm or deny the “calumniators” theories who see globalization as damaging that leads to increased domination of developed countries over the poor, underdeveloped countries where hegemony increases “of those who have” over “those who do not have.” At the same time, globalization critics point out that globalization undermines democracy, cultural homogenization and increased destruction of the natural environment and species on the planet Earth.
Joseph Straubhar explores ways in which public television and national identity can be re-affirmed against the global, regional and local level of the world television, emphasizing that the discussion on globalization has become more complex. He is proposing the development of a multilevel approach to global trends in television and culture that explores the global, national, regional and local motions of the cultures as the shape of production and reception mentioned above.
In fact, by attacking the myth that globalization is creating mystification and homonegression, he explores both ways that globalization forces and television travel around the world and which are linked to the development of market capitalism, as well as in which way cultural hybridity is deepened through national, regional and local distribution of global forms. The result is an image of globalization that is more complex, historically nuanced and open to distribution, transformation and opposition.
On the other hand, Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner1 argue that with the continued growth of the Internet, both as a form of mainstream media and as a tool for the organization of democratic social interactions, it is necessary to re-consider the Internet policy from the standpoint of being critically focused and reconstructive. What does that mean? Namely, their approach is critical to all corporative forms and the hegemonic use of the Internet, but they are on the line of opposition implementation of opinions that represent different groups within a goal aimed at a progressive cultural and political struggle. They are proud to show how blogs and wikis can democratize the media and improve opposition movements and politics.
Internet has just made it easier appearances, on the world level, anti-globalization, anti-war protests and anti-capitalist movements. It is necessary, within the development of democracy, to use the revolutionary nature of new technologies, media and communications to promote changes in society on a daily basis. A concrete example is the attitude of the author of this essay which had reflected online both on its official website and on social networks (Facebook and Twitter) in 2014, the protest in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina:
“Not to support the justified protests of disempowered workers and citizens in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (one, out of two entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina) for engaging intellectuals today is as signing the capitulation in front of Hitler in 1941. My name, knowledge and art supports everything that leads to a consociation shape of the polylogue with a view to satisfy the process targeting the prosecution all those who have been exploiting the period 1990 – 2014 with the aim of satisfying hoydenish robbery ambitions. But we must not allow that Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks (read: Muslims) and others are guilty to the Serbs, Bosniaks (Read: Muslims), Croats, and others because of the above. The thief has no nationa name and national surnam. In one word – he/she is a thief. In all languages, races and within all nations.
A non-party, expert government at all levels of power is a prerequisite for making possible an alternative against “organized anarchy” that responds to the name of modern, current Bosnia and Herzegovina. But, at the same time, the creation of a so-called “revocation mechanism” that is activated within six(6) months of appointment on the position, if it turns out to have just a form and not the essence of power for the people, from the people.
Our Election Law does not include the option of extraordinary elections and they cannot be implemented except at the level of the whole country. For that, it is a fact and for sure, we will not have consensus in both entities and it must be clear to everyone, no matter how painful it is. I am convinced that it is far better, instead of the extraordinary elections now (which would certainly have been manipulated by the spin-masters of this or that party) to introduce a non-party, expert governments into the FBiH on all levels with a deadline until October 2014. and that they are trying to save the continuation of the robbery and the impoverishment of the people, introduce 1 KM (aprox. 0,5 Euros) monthly fee for all formerly employed councilors / member of the Parliaments at all levels of legislative authority, and to introduce salaries to employees at the governmental institution in FBiH on average level (approx. 420 Euros instead of between 1,000.00 and 2,500.00 Euros as it is now).
And in October 2014, play on the new and only new names on the lists by introducing the rule in the Election Law that no one, even though nobody who was once elected and in one mandate was engaged, cannot be re-elected again. Even the American president can only be President in two mandates, and as far as I know, there are people in the ministerial armchairs and parliamentary benches for whom we can say that they are there since their legal age. P.S. transparency is painful, but healthy … to pain, not just for one’s own. “(Sabahudin Hadžialić, 2014).
Today in, aside of that it is still being painfully actual, 2017, this moment represents the bonding (proliferation, multiplying) of new media and global forms of culture, as well as global political movements. From “Battle in Seattle” in 1999, an abundance of world social movements have emerged from the above that are opposed to the forms of corporate globalism by creating movements based on human rights struggles, struggles for the rights of workers, women rights struggle, minority groups, and the struggle for the environment and peace, above all. These movements are increasing by using global forms of communication such as the Internet and new technology to make all of them complex, challenging within the united world, a more perfect world for us all. The new virtual culture, which requires proper Media Literacy, is on the horizon and is becoming more and more an integral part of our daily life, increasing the dematerialization of culture as well as its globalization.
New media formats require new models of theoretical analysis, from which we continually participate in, let’s call it that, the turbulence of changes conditioned by new media, both within the media and the culture itself, as we deeper and deeper get into the new millennium.
The solution is in front of us.
It is up to us to across the river which is deep and wide.
1. Richard Kahn and Douglas M. Kellner, “Oppositional politics and the internet: A critical/ reconstructive approach.” In Cultural Politics, 1:1 (2005). © 2005 by Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner.