Instead, Marx would have argued for a more violent overthrow of the existing social super- structure. Furthermore, Marx would have contended that globalization and the creation of a global economy founded upon capitalism without the overthrow Of the existing bourgeois would just further the interests Of the ruling class.
Marx would also have agreed with Judger Habeas’ view that improving the living conditions of all as a means to change the super- structure and that unfettered capitalism leads to the deleterious stratification of world society, but, again, would have disagreed as to the effectiveness of the essentially peaceful communicative action in the public sphere, posited by Habeas, as a means to eliminate the division within society.
In all likelihood, Marx would probably be more inclined to see the merits of violent errors campaigns of shock and awe as opposed to a self-imposed Western revision of self-image. While these three theorists have their dissimilarities there is a common thread to their argument-?globalization can be a tremendous force for peaceful global unity, but only if the focus is on the improvement of the standard of living, not merely to advance the interests of the few.
Furthermore, globalization in its current state continues to uphold the existing power structure, and it is morally imperative to readdress traditional notions in regard to globalization. Karl Marx not only argued that capitalism results in the dehumidifying stratification of the vast majority of the populace, but he also argued for a radical reevaluation of traditional ideas. Marx recognized that capitalism is inherently corrupt, and has seriously adverse effects on society as it strips away undivided laity while simultaneously objectifying people, turning them into mere commodities.
He also recognized that class antagonisms and the exploitation of one part of society by the other have been common threads throughout the history of past societies. He posited that the current class antagonism takes the form of a division between the means of production, the proletariat, and the owners of capital, the bourgeois. Marx called for the violent overthrow of the existing socio- economic status quo, the centralization of power, and the elimination of both the nation-state as well as class division.
Peter Singer, in his essay on globalization, also argues for a reevaluation Of the role Of the nation-state as a means toward improving the standard of living for the majority while dissipating class divisions. Singer purports that globalization and the global economy have brought humanity closer together than previously imaginable, and it is morally imperative to reevaluate the ethics of the nation-state’s role in this kind of global environment.
He asserted that the geographic isolation that led to the manifestation of sovereign nation-states has become an antiquated notion in today’s world in which we are all contingent upon each other for survival. He condemns the Bush administration’s refusal to compromise the American lifestyle in order prevent the poverty, subjugation, ND death that is the collateral damage of furthering American national interests.
In Mar*s view, this would be tantamount to the reluctance of bourgeois society to compromise its lifestyle. He concedes that leaders are morally obligated, to an extent, to put the interests of their own citizens first; however, he argues that globalization (which is furthered mainly by Western interests) forces leaders to reevaluate the extent to which they are morally obligated to their own citizens as opposed to their moral obligation to the greater good.
Furthermore, Singer argues, it is not only morally imperative for the concept of sovereignty to be reevaluated, but it is also a matter of security, due to terrorism, which requires an authoritative global system Of criminal justice to prevent differences of opinion amongst various nations from impeding justice. Essentially, he calls for the end of nationalism and for the adoption of a new, cosmopolitan mentality in which we are citizens of the world.
He emphatically calls for a reevaluation of ethics and argues for ethical justification as a means towards creating a new ethic-?a global ethic viewpoint-?that helps increase the quality of life for global citizens. Judger Habeas also called for a reexamining of self-image in the West in regards to being perceived as a humiliating presence in the world, and he argued that the unbridled capitalism and class stratification that characterize globalization create a breakdown of communication, which corrupts society and leads to violence and terrorism.
Habeas emphasizes communication as the key towards eliminating class division and attaining equality. He advocates that a change in thinking must take place in order to affect change, UT the only way that shift in mentality can take place is to improve the quality of life and provide relief from the sense of fear and oppression that permeates throughout the proletariat.
Similarly to Singer, he criticizes the powerful nations of the world for not being able to look beyond their own interests, and he argues that globalization in its current form must be revised or the disparities of wealth and the degradation of humanity will persist. The common theme in all three theorist’s arguments is the moral imperative of improving the living conditions of the majority. Furthermore, all three seem to Greer that in order to improve the standard of living there needs to be a reassessment of traditional values and ethics in regard to the socio-economic system Of capitalism.
Now that I have given a truncated explanation Of the theories of these three men, for the remainder of this essay, I will first look at how Marx would view Singer’s theory’ on globalization and capitalism, Then, I will discuss Mar’s possible stance on Habeas’ position on globalization and terrorism. Marx would have agreed with many aspects of Singer’s analysis of the effects and potential of globalization. Singer uses Mar’s views on technology and its power to affect change to further his argument that globalization can be a positive force for equality if ethical adjustments are made to the current form.
Marx would also have agreed, in theory, to a centralized global economy, as a central bank was a key feature of Communism. Most notably, Marx would have agreed with Singer’s assessment of the role of the nation-state as he viewed the elimination of national differences and antagonisms combined with united action as a requisite for the liberation of the working class. Philosophically, however, I live Marx would have disagreed with Singer’s passive appeal to ethical revision as the means toward equality.
While Singer makes some valid points on ethical justification-? the belief that if members of society and society itself view themselves as members of a global community as opposed to a national or tribal community, then they will feel a need to justify their behavior to the whole world creating a type Of global responsibility On the part Of the individual and society-?and he illustrates that Marx did not foresee the technological opiate of mass media; however, believe Marx would say that in days society of reality television, where immorality, depravity, and avarice are not just tolerated but rewarded, that ethical justification will not manifest as a priority in Western culture.
Furthermore, while Singer’s use of Thomas Friedman’s “Golden Straightjacket’s” metaphor illustrates the diminishing role of the nation-state, it still keeps the ruling elite in power and the proletariat at the whim of bourgeois multinational corporations. Marx and Habeas are more in line than Singer and Marx. Perhaps that is because Habeas is a product of the Marxist school of thought. They both agree that the exploitation and subjugation of the majority is due to the inherent corruption of unchecked capitalism. Marx would agree that globalization in its current form is the cause of terrorism, but I believe he would be inclined to favor the terrorists even if the sole effect is shock and awe.
Marx wanted to subvert traditional ideas and overthrow the existing social structure, and he believed that violence was necessary to achieve those ends. He believed in the abolition of class and the end of hierarchy, and in a binary sense, the absence f hierarchy is anarchy. Habeas calls for a more pragmatic redistribution of wealth and assets as opposed to violent revolution. In conclusion, Marx was arguing for a revolution of traditional ideas, and Singer and Habeas, in effect, are arguing for the same. Both Singer and Habeas build on Mar’s views on socio-economic morality and condemn the morally unethical stance taken by the rich/bourgeois nations in regard to globalization.