The core theme is a critique of Branco Milanovic's "11 theses on globalization," arguing that they present obvious statements as profound insights, masking a void in truly intelligent analysis. The author posits that democracy is not the end of history but rather the end of the modern state, serving as a tool for postmodern globalization.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
In this session we are going to address a question that has to do with globalization and that
is related to the statements with the comments and the occurrences that an
author whose name is Branco Milanovic has made in an article titled precisely 11 theses
on globalization Here We are going to support an absolutely fundamental idea in relation to the
statements of this author that, in general terms, appear to us to be a display of opportunities, these
11 theses on globalization that summarize quite clearly and quite clearly a
real void about the possibilities of reflecting on the globalization in
frankly competent, demanding or intelligent terms I insist on 11 theses that reflect this void from
which many gurus because they do not deserve another name who speak about globalization
do not tell us absolutely anything. They will be the object of analysis and criticism in this session whose
fundamental theme just as here I am going to maintain that democracy is not the end of history but
the end of modern states, this in itself is neither good nor bad but is simply one
more transformation of historical changes and historical dialectics but This is the
reflection we came to after reading these 11 theses on globalization that are something like
the solemnity of the Obvious or simply a rosary of occurrences that Anyone could
subscribe to because who is going to oppose what is obvious and evident? What happens is that presenting the
obvious and the evident as if it were the result of a very great effort through which it is achieved
after many hours of work and study, it is really something frankly unusual,
not to say even ridiculous, here I say, come on. to support the absolutely fundamental thesis that
democracy is not the end of history as Fukuyama maintained because no one has the
keys to Fortune no one has the keys to history no one has the keys to Democracy
neither Fukuyama nor absolutely anyone When someone even repeats to critically what others have
said before him, in reality he suffers from what we are going to call the rhapsode syndrome, that is
, the syndrome of someone who quotes and recites what others before him have said but
does not demonstrate any original thought, that is, he reiterates. Critically, that democracy is the end
of history means denying something that all of us who lived in the
first part, in the first years, in the first decades of the 21st century, have before us. And democracy is just
another episode of history that is constantly transforms that it begins being one way
and ends being another way and that at this moment democracy is one of the
fundamental instruments of globalization not to be the end point of history but to simply be
a decisive transformation of the modern State in Another thing is that the modern states that emerged
in the 16th century that emerged in the Renaissance today become administrative units
territorially or geographically that depend on entities much superior to the States and that
can acquire the form of an empire organized hegemonically by trade, this in itself
is something that some people think is good and others simply think it is bad, here I am not
going to go into this, that is to say, this is like someone who thinks it is bad that it rains or someone who thinks it is bad
that it thunders or someone who thinks it is bad whether the tide rises or falls These are realities of history
that an individual cannot change naturally all people have their opinions some
will say they agree others will say they disagree but the facts are there I
mean we can all agree agreement Even if it is sunny or rainy, but that is not going to alter the course
of events here the thesis that is maintained is that democracy is not the end of
history, democracy is the end of a concept of state the concept of a modern state that arises
in the 16th century and that basically fades away throughout the 21st century to give rise to something else,
something else that will be what they will see or what they will suffer or what they will enjoy depending on what context they find themselves in,
because our descendants our grandchildren our children etcetera etcetera now globalization
is the result of postmodern globalization because it is not the first globalization
of history the Roman Empire establishes its globalization the Empire of Alexander the Great
establishes its globalization there as far as it goes the Spanish Empire establishes its globalization and the
American Empire establishes its globalization in which we currently find ourselves at least
in the West facing the China bloc now Well, globalization is the historical result of a
series of important transformations, naturally, human societies do not start out being global,
they start out being tribal, these tribes at a given moment develop and give rise
to city states whose model is basically Greece. It is above all classical Greece. The
Athenian polis etcetera etcetera with the passage of time power is articulated not through
city states exclusively but through empires and the great center of references the
Roman Empire and more as time goes on Well, the Spanish Empire are empires that are even
constituted Before the Constitution of the political Nations itself, the concept of nation is already
a very late concept, it is a basically post-enlightened and romantic concept. Before that, there is the concept
of state applied to cities or applied to empires that functioned as
geographical states so to speak. say the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, these are
basically historical modalities, but in the Old Regime in the Old Regime there is no democracy in the
Old Regime there is absolutism and with the fall of the Old Regime with the end of the 18th century
a new regime is established where Democracy replaces the previous absolutism and the democracy
that is established at the end of the number 18 is not exactly the democracy that we know today.
Democracy has undergone very important transformations and naturally the democracy that
we know today will not be the democracy that our descendants or the human beings who will know.
populate planet earth Well, in the blog in the next century or in the next centuries And there
are still human beings planet earth or democracies that are worth this name today we live
in a postmodern democracy and the postmodern democracy resulting from a Revolution against the
absolutism of the The old regime is a democracy that proposes in its orientations the dissolution of the
modern State and the configuration of supranational political structures that
basically name the market basically name the friends of commerce manage the political life of
human beings the political life and of course the economic life of human beings now this
implies that they have less autonomy they have fewer powers they have
fewer possibilities because they are subordinated to politically broader structures the
European economic community the UN etc. different international or transnational organizations
that manage the life of states standardizing it, neutralizing it And therefore also the life
of human beings. I insist that I am not going to go into whether this is better or worse, and
everyone has their opinion, they have their opinion, I simply limit myself to stating some facts in
these facts, obviously they are It articulates not only the economy but also education, health,
ideologies, business and financial objectives of all kinds in such a way that all human political, economic, intellectual, sentimental life
is even articulated and developed from
these criteria. It enormously enhances the individual, the collective, the local. and that they dissolve
the national states, I insist, the states that were created especially since the 15th century since the
16th century Spain is one of the earliest states but it is one of the latest nations while
Germany Italy is still a much later nation They are fruits of the most advanced romanticism
almost the last half of the century the last years the end of the second half
of the last half of the 19th century therefore we are talking about the states emerging very
early in 1492 in the case of Spain so much has been written about these recently but
nations emerge post-romantically in fact the nation is a romantic concept and by romanticism
there cannot be nations properly speaking before the 19th century in modern political terms
there was talk of States basically of City State there is no talk of the nation Venice no HE
speaks of the Tuscan nation, does not speak of duchies etcetera etcetera of course we have gone from tribes
to city states, medieval feudalisms and against medieval feudalisms arise
modern states that today are dissolved in the name of a democracy that is articulated through
globalization commercial globalization commercial globalization that is why I maintain
that democracy is not the end of history but rather the end of the modern State to give
rise to a different political unit the modern state has been the political unit of reference
practically since the from the renaissance to the 21st century from the 21st century the
modern state is articulated in something else it is subdivided into structures it is integrated into much
broader political units and naturally it loses it loses identity it loses autonomy it loses the noun that they want
to apply to it according to the interests of each one now, the 11 theses on globalization that
Branco Milanovi speaks about, who the ones we are going to go into right now clearly support some ideas
that, due to their obviousness, are very ridiculous. Here we start from Milanovic's thinking, at least
in this one in this statement in This article is based on the fact that from an idea that is not criticized,
in fact absolutely nothing is criticized but rather everything is taken for granted. It is based on an idea
by virtue of which Anglo-Saxon and postmodern globalization, that is, the globalization of the
21st century that It is Anglo-Saxon and postmodern imagines and designs a future for the world for the West for
Spain for all Western countries for the world in general imagines a future as if this
future for the world for the West for Spain came from a country like the United States, that is,
It is as if the future of the world were interpreted as if the world came exclusively from the
United States. Of course, this is very curious because to imagine that the future of the world comes from the
history of a country without history, without stories, without literature, such as the United States, whose concept Literature
has nothing to do with the concept of Hispanic Greco-Latin literature, but rather
literature as a self-help book, as an entertainment book, as a book of
organic experiences, even literature as a horror story or as a pornographic novel, that is, as a
type of discourse. that provokes in the human being more than intellectual reactions, organic reactions.
That is the concept of literature that the United States basically has in such a way that of course the
future of the world, the future resident, the future of Spain, the future of many nations does not respond to
American logic. It responds to its own logic with its own history with its
own culture. So the question I ask myself is why, basically, university students
, university professors and university students, look for
American explanations, explanations in English for problems that do not have a cause in English
. say why they look for explanations in English to problems in Spanish why they look for solutions in
English to problems in Spanish Well basically they do it because I will say it frankly they lack
originality that is to say when someone lacks interpretive originality what they do is repeat
what they have done others and in this case the fact that they invent in one go is very comfortable because
others write, others think, others invent and university professors and
university students repeat what others invent. But they do not have the capacity to develop
their own thinking and a original thought and this is very regrettable especially when talking
about what others invent because sometimes what others invent is a very defective invention, it is
a very deficient invention or in any case it is a very objectionable or very criticizable invention of course.
when someone does not know how to be original Probably this lack of originality is due to a
lack of knowledge of their own culture, their own history, their own literature, take into account
their own language, their own possibilities to be original. In short, then of course
we return again to the rhapsode syndrome the rhapsode syndrome is one who suffers
from the repetition of recitation syndrome constantly quoting and reciting what a teacher said like
so-and-so says as so-and-so says as so-and-so says as so-and-so says as you say te rigeton as George Steiner says as someone
who has an English name or whatever name but who works at a North American university
says as such an individual says the clocks mark the time and then of course he says the clocks mark the time time
we did not know until now, not as so-and-so says, the fact that a square has four sides
forces us to admit that in fact a square has four sides, this when someone
in a North American university says it, well it seems that someone important says it, then Of course yes. They say it
in Villa with axes of the Infante above because this has no relevance, this is
very very common, especially in the case of those who have the rhapsode complex, not because the continuous
rhapsode complex is believed to be attacked by authority or luminosity. about someone who
has said something obvious, if he has said it in a country that geographically has global or planetary potential,
this is very, very surprising, very surprising, in a certain way this is what
happens to many authors or happens to us sometimes throughout history. Life at different times is what
happens to Blanco and Novic. Of course, I said a moment ago that the United States is a country
in history in relation to the history that any other countries can have, any other
countries in Europe or the East, as it is. the case of China whose history is millennia old Or at least
that is what they say No, but I have also said that the United States is a country without literature and that it has a
concept of literature in which literature is completely reduced to a kind of
discourse that provokes stimuli organic, because how can a horror novel
or a pornographic movie provoke them? I insist, that is not to say that it seems that when someone reads literature in
American terms they have to feel a kind of physical excitement because otherwise that is not literature
in such a way that it is like a kind from attractions that of course can be replaced
by real amusement parks because of course a novel cannot replace life, anyone
who tries to learn what love is by reading love poems will never fall in love with
literature. literature You have to be aware of what you
encounter in literature, literature is not life, literature is a result of life,
that is, someone who intends to live by reading novels will end up with a lot of flaws and
psychological problems. first magnitude, as in fact happens to Don Quixote, if
El Quixote teaches us anything, it is that life is in reality, not in books, that is why
in the exaltation of books and reading, as recently published in the press. that a
person read 100 books a year and so that he is 100 books a year so that he is One hundred books a year
to count it only not like those who have a high IQ
What is the point of having a high IQ to count it because of course They have
something else to tell because the IQ tests count, that is to say, that
is a ridiculous way of displaying narcissism. In short, but what
I am going to do is to dismiss literature as a means of interpreting reality, which is equivalent to living
in a semantic third world. That is to say, it is equivalent to placing oneself in the cave of the Anglosphere, that is,
in a society that lacks literature that lacks literature as an instrument
of interpretation of reality since the moment in which the Anglosphere has replaced literature
with culture and does so. precisely because it is part of a cultural tradition that
lacks literature and that is why it is forced to replace literature with culture from that
moment on, those who have been formed in that society and culture are deprived of
literature as an instrument of interpretation. from reality and that is depriving oneself of many things
because we believe that training in mathematics, biology, biogenetics, chemistry is
very important and we do not move away but the lack of literary training prevents the human ability
to interpret very complex verbal texts. And that is something that those educated in the Anglosphere
cannot in any way satisfy reading the world in English implies that half of the world
imperceptible because there is much more in this world than what is written in English,
starting above all with literature, much of which is completely introducible to an
Anglo-Saxon context if many of the authors of the writers of the supposed thinkers
trained in English had knowledge Literary writers would realize that most
of what they write about politics about science about sociology about Anthropology
is neither politics nor science Anthropology but simply poorly made literature poorly
written literature That is, they are fictions that do not correspond to reality Because they do not know
can think without thinking about reality, most intellectuals think without thinking about
reality and talk without talking about reality Because what they talk to us about is simply
poorly made literature, poorly conceived and poorly written, to a large extent, the articulation. The
ideas and writing of this gentleman from Branco Milanovic in this article is that of a
literary work in Kids format for mass consumption but that does not really say anything about what is
necessary to know or interpret. Let's enter fully into the en this man's article by
this man and we are going to critically examine some of his statements underlining a
fundamental and capital idea and that is that the theme or central idea of his intervention is not mentioned
it is not mentioned at all but it distracts from what is important As is often said when it
comes to using techniques to mislead, I insist that the fundamental thesis is that
globalization is not the end of history but the end of modern states and I also insist
that this in itself is neither Good nor bad but it is simply one more course in the
outcome of history it is one more development it is one more movement it is one
more transformation because the problems are not resolved the problems are transformed that is to say the birth
of modern states represented the solution of many problems caused by feudalism
but also led to the creation of new problems the collapse of the Old Regime led to
problems that the Old Regime gave rise to but generated new problems globalization
tries to solve problems that occurred in the 20th century, especially atrocious and terrible world wars
but it gives rise to other different problems. What this means is that we do not believe in utopias, we do not
believe in panaceas, globalization has positive aspects for certain people
and negative aspects for certain other people. No, we cannot have a celebration of
globalization in every sense. and we cannot make a condemnation in every sense,
there each one of you will have his opinion and will estimate what he considers appropriate now
it is clear that human beings begin to polemicize and begin to argue when they
run out of arguments when they lose the reason, people start the discussion when
reason is lost, the discussion begins, that is, when there are no more arguments to put on the table,
all the people start to argue irrationally, but let's go to the 11 theses, the first thesis says,
first of all, inequality and poverty but of course Mr. Branco Milanovic applies a
nominal style And of course we do not know if what he means is that globalization overcomes inequality and
poverty has the intention of overcoming inequality or poverty or causes it because his
Nominal Style does not clarify it Absolutely nominal style does not clarify this question but says globalization
is a force for global good Of course, but for whose global good, for mine, for that of the
businessman, for that of the friend of commerce, for that of the enemy of freedom, of what
freedom of what trade is to say to affirm that globalization is a force for the global good
means nothing because for whose global good and what is the global good because each one
will understand it in a different way of course these are exhibitions of a naivety
that is galloping The globalization of economic activity has allowed the
production of many basic products and the provision of many services to be carried out
in places where it is cheaper to do so but where it is cheaper for whom. For whoever is paid.
for doing that work for the one who pays to do that work for the one who benefits
commercially from that work That is to say, but for who says because he is a very good person Don so-and-so
is a very good person well He is a good person for whom because of course sometimes he is good person for
one implies being bad for other people of course So this is the same as saying that
eating has organic consequences Yes, but eating poison or taking poison ingesting poison has
organic consequences that ingesting poison is not the same as ingesting a sirloin of course It is
not the same thing, of course it has organic consequences obviously but what type of intake
because of course a diabetic person cannot eat the same type of food as a person who does not
have diabetes under, let's say, usual conditions, of course a person who is allergic to dairy products cannot
eat dairy as if I didn't have that allergy, I mean that these types of statements
serve to entertain people who lack critical concerns and critical competencies
second Chinese thesis simply mentions China of course this is like saying Mars Jupiter Saturn
or listing the table of multiply and notice the most important positive effects due largely
to globalization and international trade have been achieved in China
Yes, but not at the hands of Democracy, therefore considering that democracy
is a function of trade will be in the Western bloc but not in China because in China it has
managed to compete commercially with the West without pressing the Democracy button at all.
Another question is that the Western Democracy button has
much more in common with the totalitarianism of the People's Republic of China than what seems to be imagined. But this is another question
because the final thesis that he also arrived at is that Chinese society and Western society
touch at their extremes at the extremes of trade as political totalitarianism but that
is another question that we will reach at the end of the 21st century. not at the end of this session of course
and the author continues branco milanovic china explains most of the decrease in
inequality and global poverty is good but he explains it with some arguments that perhaps
not everyone shares That depends It depends on whatever each person wants to share
based on their interests, possibilities of survival and work capacities
to defend globalization, neoliberals have to praise China, but
Chinese policies are unpleasant to them. Well,
things that take away benefits
but to them are unpleasant or not unpleasant. The friends of commerce do not find anything unpleasant that improves their profits,
therefore I insist that the People's Republic of China and the Western democracies are
converging lines from the point of view of commercial interests, that is, democracy
cares about democrats and the market. Consumers care, therefore
consumption is a priority over freedom and commerce is a priority over democracy. For
this reason, in China, commercial activity is above freedom and in
the West this is not the case. To a certain extent, being does not sell. human his freedom for money
third place the West simply the West again the nominal style so typical of English
the West is simply a geographical area also a political area but what tells us
about the West globalization opens up a series of issues that are especially difficult for the West
such as feudalism as modern states such as tribal organization
such as ancient empires such as the Roman or the Spanish also spoke also opened
the Spanish Empire especially difficult questions for American geography
this this what exactly this means is not something that was expected when they rule
and Clinton when Zacher and Blair sold globalization to Western populations
as a guaranteed profit for the middle class. It cannot be sold as a
guaranteed profit for the middle class but without consulting the middle class, this is the
enlightened despotism of the late 20th century, all for the middle class but without the middle class
in the results in sight they are fourth speaks of the great convergence it must be with a periphrasis
of the great depression because the great convergence and says the successes of China and India
also have a good geopolitical aspect This is the solemnity of the obvious raised to the 10 millionth
power this is like saying the intake of food has digestive consequences
Yes that is this It is inevitable that China and India cannot go back to their
19th century positions, they can go back to the Lower Paleolithic, just as we can go back to
the time of the Cro-Magnons or the Ponggids. In fact, history never guarantees that
the freedom of the 21st century will be broader than the freedom of the 12th century, it is simply a
different freedom with the passage of time with the course of history, freedom is not expanded progressively,
it is simply transformed, sometimes regressively, the
paradox may even arise that In the middle of the 12th century In the 21st century, human beings have fewer freedoms
than they did at the end of the 20th century, but that will be a question that
our grandchildren or descendants will have to face. Fifth point is titled commercial blocks
and says a way, in the opinion of some, to invest. the decline involves rewriting the rules of
globalization Well that is a mutation of the mutation of the mutation of the mutation
the rules of the game are always being rewritten in fact one of the characteristics of politics
is to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game that has always been part of real politics
globalization would apply only to countries with which we have a
friendly political relationship this What does it mean There can be no globalization this is one for diastole it
is not just all that glitters it is not globalization all globalization So this is a play
on words obviously that has nothing to do with real globalization here it seems that what
George Steiner writes is not to say that he says one thing and the opposite and everything flows as if he were
Octavio Paz writing an essay it is the return to the world of commercial blocs and when of
commercial blocs when Lutheranism grows precisely with an idea of commerce with its
back to modern States because they practically perpetuated
feudal states until the end of the 18th century, which is where the idea of commerce was born Calvinist and Protestant a trade that
does not pay border taxes between States because it is a commercial activity between fiefdoms
it is a trade with its back to the States the friends of trade have always been enemies of
the states and this I insist is not that it is better or worse it is That is how it is, there will be people who
think it is bad that the states disappear and there will be people who think it is good that
the states disappear, but these are the permanent and constant conflicts of interest. Now,
it is necessary to be aware of this, it is necessary to be aware. of this to become compatible with
reality Because to become compatible with reality, knowledge is needed and not
self-help books, that is, we become compatible with reality if we are aware that the
objective of democracy and globalization is not to make us everyone freer and happier
but simply destroying the modern state to make the possibilities of clear trade more feasible
This is not self-help this knowledge self-help consists of saying be happy and don't
look with who or look at the sky How the clouds pass no Or propose your goal and achieve it
or it's a happy day don't be sad it rains and smile These are self-help phrases slogans
for a completely semantic third world but of course when knowledge of the law does not exempt you
ignorance of the law does not exempt you from its compliance because It is advisable to know how to read and and when
to survive it is necessary to make yourself compatible with reality, it is advisable to replace self-help
such as Little House on the Prairie or Little Women True with something that actually allows you to live each
day because to live each day, to survive each day is to become compatible with reality. Reality implies
replacing self-help with knowledge. The main form of self-help is not to repeat
stupid phrases, but simply to acquire a competent education that, in a rational and
critical manner, allows us to know the world in which we live and become compatible with it. Not adapting to it.
adaptation is one thing compatibility is a completely different thing adaptation implies its
mission compatibility implies management but milanovic's writing does not inform us about anything
it is simply a group therapy it is the writing of a guru of a shaman but not of no of someone
who truly tries to explain to us what globalization is so that we can become
compatible with it, that no one expects that one day it will rise and the world will be just as they want, the
world is the result of the construction of many incompatible human beings, many of these human beings
among themselves and within which to survive it is necessary to become compatible and necessary to agree,
says mercantilism that does not dare to say its name, well no, the author
of the article will not dare to say his name is to say this is an Open Secret. On the other hand, the supporters of
globalization find it difficult to defend ideologically. Well, if someone who has
all the means of communication at his disposal finds it difficult to defend
ideologically a system that is imposed almost in a totalitarian way, you will already measure how difficult it is.
that those of us who dedicate ourselves to talking about Don Quixote or the poetry of Sor
Juana Inés de la Cruz have it, of course this is very curious because if the supporters of globalization
have a difficult time defending the ideologically, then you will tell me who does not have
an easy time in this world because this is either they are kidding me or they are telling me a joke
But well, jokes at least should be told either with grace or with irony but
not in this way sixth The Wars says this man, the geopolitical angle
has exacerbated political tensions and even military on a global scale
since always, but let's always notice that the mythical legend between Cain and Abel already
globalized the tensions and in that case fratricides on a global scale Because they were supposedly the
only inhabitants on the face of the earth, so from then until Today we are in
wars In which this is saying the same thing again, not a circle is circular well
worth it. Thus, paradoxically, globalization that through the softening effect of trade and
independence and mutual interdependence should have promoted a world of agreement and
peace has created the inverse conditions conducive to conflict and even war Well,
some cats have already put us in an elephant-sized hare the softening effect of trade the
softening effect of trade is the one after the totalizing effect of war, that is, war
is a prolongation of politics as has been said thousands of times and trade is the result
war artillery to say as if wars did not have commercial causes and consequences is
that the basically objective of war is commercial activity so
let's talk about the softening effect of trade It is completely ironic completely ironic trade is
carried out basically where the war has established a series of conditions that make
commercial development possible The battle of Lepanto tried to ensure the trade of Venice
Spain and the Vatican in the Mediterranean that is to say Wars take place because There are
commercial reasons that require it to be said, if it were not for trade, war would not exist, which is
why the enemies of trade consider that by suppressing trade we suppress Wars,
but of course we do not solve human needs,
etc., and then they speak seventh of disappointments and profits. What began as
a globalization full of advantages for many now has a very
different aspect. Well, globalization of advantages for many, for many, for whom,
for many, it has advantages and for many, it has drawbacks. In other words, it is
very difficult to agree on the losses and benefits of Some and other people
But from another point of view, globalization has created a much more egalitarian world
and we ask egalitarian between Who, since it answers both between the individuals of the world and
in terms of economic and political power between Europe, America and Asia, well, this is to say that
This is the same as saying that globalization has created a much more egalitarian world between
the earthlings and inhabitants of the planet Earth than among the Martians. We all
agree on that. But it has created a more egalitarian world among the individuals of the world
, but it has to be created among the individuals of the world because it cannot
be created among the bacteria. of Mesopotamia understand what I mean by this, then
of course saying that globalization has created a more egalitarian world between individuals is
the same as saying that a rat killer has killed the rats, of course, obviously, but these are
complete novelties, it is the same as To say that the squaring of the circle affects all
squared circles, this makes no sense at all, it makes no sense at all because
they are obvious things that reveal absolutely nothing, that is, how can you fill pages and
pages writing these things? Well, when you have readers who receive them acrylically
in eighth place climate change speaks this is how climate change puts it well this is one of the
great stories of postmodernity that can be true it can be a lie for some people it is
true for other people it is a lie but it is true Or it is a lie under the climate change
it is possible to legitimize a certain political program that I insist, climate change is true
for some people it is a lie for other people it is okay but regardless of whether it is true or whether it is
a lie, climate change allows us to legitimize a series of programs and political imperatives
by margin I insist that what bases this is true OR is false is true according to some
people is false according to other people it does not matter it does not matter whether it is true or whether it is
a lie because the fact we are faced with is that this truth or this lie allows us to legitimize
a political program an agenda called 2030 from here on it does not matter if it is true or a
lie because it is true or false what is a true and operational fact and that works
perfectly is a political program aimed at achieving certain objectives and says
this gentleman even the positive aspects of globalization and points out reduction of inequality
and poverty contain negative traits well worth positive aspects of globalization reduction
of inequality and poverty in Who in people who are 30 years old and cannot
buying a house reduction of inequality and poverty among those who cannot afford
a car among those who have seen how car ownership is becoming more expensive and more unbearable every day
the positive aspects of globalization among those among generations who do not have
any doors open in the labor market Well, I ask myself these questions, maybe
they have an answer that I don't know, but here there are generations of human beings who have a
closed world. At 20 and 30 years old, they have a closed world before them, so this man says that even
positive aspects of globalization that have reduced inequality and poverty, we should
ask who and where I am not saying that it does not happen but I wonder who and where
because massively every day I meet more people who are mired in inequality and Poverty,
despite the positive traits, says that it contains negative traits. That is to say, even
though there are even numbers in the decimal metric system, there are also odd numbers.
Of course, this deserves applause because it was like that professor at a university
that I am not going to say. What country did Don Quixote warn about? It has two parts, the first and the
second. Let's see which brilliant student is able to tell me which part comes before the second
and some responded wrongly, but well,
these are the gurus of globalization.
amorality of course I could say financing to morality and garlic soup but not garlic soup
he doesn't mention it only financing and morality And then well he talks about things he talks about things
because Of course in financing and morality well he can talk about speed and bacon no
for example he says the globalization has operated through the financing of the economy
man yes where that specific business has been valued more than more solid virtues and here
he talks to us about virtues he talks to us about virtues such as inventiveness Constancy probity
abstinence and prudence These should be the five virtues of
and prudence the five capital virtues of globalization I could have pointed out 5000
more because total is an accumulation of nouns this is what is called in rhetoric a chaotic enumeration
because it is neither ascending recording nor descending gradative, it is not even what is
called the anticlimax in rhetoric, a descending gradation in dust in smoke on the ground, nothing that
Góngora would say, no, this is a chaotic enumeration, it is typical of surrealism, no. has
favored behaviors based on a short-term vision unconcerned with any broader good
once the money can be safely withdrawn business life has become
the majority of people's lives Gosh as if we were all a company Rios could also
say slave life has become the majority of people's lives
and here he points out [Music] behavior typical of the rapsode here again incurs the
rhapsode syndrome when Milton Friedman stated that the function of companies is
to maximize profits. benefits and point he was right in a strict sense These are
the typical phrases of George steiner no when Pythagoras said that the hypotenuse squared
was equivalent to the sum of the square of the legs he was right in a strict sense Yes
and when this He indicated that energy It is equal to the mass times the speed squared. He was
right in a strict sense. Yes, well, that's it. Final degree work done, okay
, but boyfriend continues the externalities. We would say the consequences produced by that statement
if the achievement of wealth and especially wealth through any medium becomes
the objective of the upper classes it spreads throughout society and ends up destroying the
cohesion and social ties it does not end up destroying the cohesion and the social ties
it ends up destroying the prosperity of the people which are very different things from the people who are not
part of that wealth or those benefits of course this is a
very curious display of truisms no in tenth place we talk about migration tenth and penultimate place we are done
it is said that during all this time globalization was incomplete clearly to say
that globalization is incomplete is to incur a para diastole, that is, it is not just everything
that glitters, it is not love but clearly appetite, incomplete globalization is not globalization.
It is that we are once again playing, teasing people, capital was included first. and the goods
then the services and the ideas well the ideas why does globalization want ideas if no
one tells them and it never included the most important factor labor no no labor
included it from the beginning because what he perfectly globalizes the
labor force, the reduction of global inequality was not achieved by moving people to where
they can earn more, which would be a natural way of proceeding. How it was not achieved. Of course,
it is achieved by those who are willing to earn money. that to move you have to emigrate
we have always emigrated we have always had to leave somewhere to survive the life of the
human being is a constant migration, some more than others but it is a constant migration
and it adds up to the minimum migration that has taken place produced political setbacks or also
advances It depends on how you want to see it or also advances or also advances is that every statement
implies in some way the legitimacy of its opposite, you have to know how to look for it last point the
last point is an epistemic imperative what to do is a question what needs to be done I say
Well you will know but please tell us something more than a shopping list because this is not a
shopping list of products that are not sold in any supermarket But this is an
obvious ideal shopping list we have to avoid at all costs wars and trade conflicts
he promises me he promises me how nice and the diseases and the cancers and the
oncological tumors I believe it and the disappointments and the tears and the reasons that jeopardize the
life of human beings, what a thing you are going to tell us, dear friend, we must accept that
it is better to have approximate equality of wealth and power between different nations
and cultures as well as within each nation and reduce carbon emissions through
a combination of high taxes on goods that emit large amounts of gases, that is to
say, that the rich consume and pollute, of course, we have to get along well. In other words, we
have to get along well, because we are going to neutralize the way of life among human beings, but with
a What criteria, of course, is like that individual who shared a hallway with other individuals in a
university, in the hallway on the right there was a department and in the hallway on the left
there was a different department and there was an individual who from time to time crossed the
hallway to go to the department of his colleagues and tell them I have a great idea and his
colleagues told me what it is and he told them the great idea the great idea was to
organize an international congress in such a way that the department opposite would pay all the
expenses and he would organize the Congress Inviting his friends was a great idea, of course, the departments
across the street said it was an inappropriate idea, inconvenient because they paid all the
expenses and he enjoyed the benefits and he said that he didn't understand, he didn't understand, how
could they reject such a great idea? consisting of the fact that he organized a conference and they paid for it,
it was an extraordinary opportunity to be able to enjoy an income organized by him with
money produced by them, well, here it is the same in a way, no, this man has some
great ideas that we already knew about for thousands of years. of years we all agree with this
we all absolutely agree the problem is how to establish those criteria
of globalization for the moment whether we agree or not It is evident that he who
lives well preaches well and that current globalization as in that cartoon by Borges of forgiveness from Forges
not from Borges Although Borges could have written vignettes as brilliant as it is even more so,
the following is told in that vignette of Forges two people walk in a ruined and contaminated world and one
tells the other what the name of that thing that told us was was going to solve all the problems it
was going to get us out of all the problems and one says globalization and the other adds that actually
here in this cartoon the real word the euphemism that hides globalization It is a taboo term is
democracy democracy was the term that was going to solve all our problems was the system
that was going to solve all our problems when something goes well it is called democracy when something
goes wrong it is called globalization but democracy and globalization are the two terms of the same
coin they are two sides of the same coin, democracy is currently the instrument
that globalization uses globalization uses to dissolve modern States and
give rise to a new political configuration in which our grandchildren will develop their
lives. This I already say, I don't know if it is good or if it is bad. It is what there is simply that it is not little
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
