Maybe Lenin was onto something when he said "Imperialism is the higest form of capitalism" (I have not checked this reference, but am assuming that the Wikipedia site was correct). Perhaps, though, the predicate could be more adeptly applied to cultural imperialism. I would imagine that the end result of capitalism would be a culture more broadly uniform in its ability to respond to a particular market. After all, the companies are looking to broaden their market share. Would not marketing in a way that allows you access to influence everyone be superior to more limited approaches? Also note that I'm not saying that they are using the same strategy, but that in their desire to reach new people, the dissemination of those products, and what they represent, would most likely result in a smoothed world culture (not homogenized).
However, many see capitalism through a merely western lens, whereas this merely labels and seeks to systematize a type of interaction is rooted more in any tit-for-tat relationship. As such, as opportunities to interact abound, so the culture (the way we reach people) becomes an integral part of the capitalistic outlook. The end result being 'cultural imperialism' via the current financial leader.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Just a little random philosophical wandering.
Previous Posts
- I think that faith is what inevitably emerges from...
- How should the government judge teachers' abilitie...
- Dawkins rebut to Paley's watchmaker is quite commo...
- Here's a nice little article on the death of the "...
- Here is the first evolutionist I know of who's rea...
- Be content to live unknown for a little while, and...
- "Our Lord must be repeatedly astounded at us - ast...
- What value does baptism have to the believer? A C...
- I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "blind ...
- Action philosophers, the comic (ok, not quite as c...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home