The jewel in the crown of Samizdata.net
A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective. We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR
[Russ.,= self-publishing house]
There is much to find for those who look
We are not alone
Made possible by...
 
February 25, 2005
Friday
 
 
Similar words but different meanings
Brian Micklethwait (London)  Globalization/economics

My February last Friday has just ended, and it was definitely one of the better ones. Patrick Crozier spoke about libertarianism and private road ownership. Excellent talk, excellent discussion. The result of Patrick's time writing for and bossing the now only archived Transport Blog, which he has now ended. (He now writes this.)

Among those present was Alex Singleton, and he naturally talked about his newly launched Globalization Institute, which, of course, has a new blog.

It occurs to me that you might expect the word itself, 'globalisation' (I prefer an 's' in the middle there), to be the equivalent, at the global level, of 'nationalisation' at the national level. Yet, while nationalisation means the national government stealing things, globalisation means something quite different and much nicer. If globalisation was the same at the global level as nationalisation is at the national level, globalisation would mean a World Government stealing things.

Does this matter? Well, maybe it does, because we surely do need a word to describe the equivalent of nationalisation, but at the global level. I have been drinking and may have forgotten the obvious, but my impression is: we do not have such a word.

Surely the existence of the word 'nationalisation' made it far easier to oppose the thing itself. Not having a word for this other form of 'globalisation', predation by the government of the globe, makes it harder to oppose, I think.

Comments

How about Internationalism?


Posted by Bernie at February 26, 2005 04:13 AM

Well globalisation works fine as it is cause there is no world government. I think what you're trying to ask is IF one comes about what do we call that government's act of nationalising businesses.

Well, it doesn't matter at the moment. However considering some good words are often bastardized and corrupted we would simply need to come up with a term that is synonymous with globalisation the same way we now use the word libertarianism as a synonym for classical liberalism.


Posted by Robert at February 26, 2005 06:15 AM
If globalisation was the same at the global level as nationalisation is at the national level, globalisation would mean a World Government stealing things.

Wouldn't that be the UN? Or if you want to slip in a step half-way, how about the EU?


Posted by Gamer at February 26, 2005 07:27 AM
I have been drinking and may have forgotten the obvious
Drinking, I presume, Nescafe Gold Blend? Need some more bookshelves, Brian? :)
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at February 26, 2005 08:03 AM

I asked Alex why if the Globalization Institute comes from a European perspective, he spelt its title in American.

But its a welcome addition to the pantheon of liberalising forces in the world.

Good luck.


Posted by paul d s at February 26, 2005 09:58 AM

It's perfectly legitimate in English to use a "z" in words such as "globalization" - indeed, it's Oxford University and OUP's house style.


Posted by john b at February 26, 2005 11:09 AM

How about "globocratization"? Sounds silly but ominous enough.


Posted by lemuel kolkava at February 26, 2005 11:17 AM

There really isn't need for one. Just say "nationalized by the UN" or whatever. If people challenge you, say the UN is behaving like a government, so it gets talked about like one.

However, I suggest a new word that might be useful is "protectoratization", adj "protectoratized": the UN tactic of turning everyplace they control into a UN fief, "temporarily" forevermore.


Posted by Julian Morrison at February 26, 2005 11:35 AM

A shame that I was unable to attend this talk. I could have explained why I am against road privatisation.


Posted by David Carr at February 26, 2005 02:08 PM
It's perfectly legitimate in English to use a "z" in words such as "globalization" - indeed, it's Oxford University and OUP's house style.
That's because their authority, quite naturally, is the Oxford English Dictionary, which takes the view that -ize is the correct spelling.

The -ize suffix is taken from the Latin (and indeed Greek), as in organizare, so it is etymologically sound to spell -ize with a z. Of course, etymology is one thing, and common useage is another. The OED seems determined to make a stand for the former in this case, however.


Posted by Toulson Caffrey at February 26, 2005 02:26 PM

Globalization is how it is spelt in Spanish. This does suggest it is the more globalized spelling.


Posted by Tom Wilkins at February 26, 2005 03:12 PM
Globalization is how it is spelt in Spanish. This does suggest it is the more globalized spelling.
Are you sure? They did plump for Zapatero, after all...
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at February 26, 2005 04:27 PM

How about pannationalization?


Posted by Ted Schuerzinger at February 26, 2005 05:08 PM

The Global equivalent of Nationalisation must be Transnationalisation. After all it is the cure that every Swampy wanabee claims for Globalisation. As in:

The only answer to globalisation is for more transnational cooperation (read UN, EU, ILO) where cooperation means anything but for the individuals concerned.


Posted by EU Serf at February 26, 2005 05:12 PM

globalisation strictly means to become like a globe "to make worldwide in scope or application". So globalizatrion can mean to make communism or libertarianism "worldwide in scope or application" It can be nice or nasty depending on who your are.

The reasons for nationalization – in the third world nationalization normally occurs to stop a countries assets being appropriated by transnational corporations or bodies.

Secondly there’s another level between private ownership and public which is municipalization – the ownership of assets/business by municiplies – which had its hey day in the 19th century.

Anyway, if inventing a new word and wanting it to have slightly sinister connotations, its seems to be the convention to use the German word see e.g schedenfreude etc while the convention is to use the French if you want to sound sophisticated/luxurious. In German
Nationalization is

Verstaatlichung

So nationliasation on a global scale would be

Globaleverstaatlichung


NB I don’t speak German so maybe someone who can can improve on the above?


Posted by Giles at February 26, 2005 06:38 PM

Globalichung

Is an alternative.


Posted by Giles at February 26, 2005 06:42 PM

or

überverstaatlichung


Posted by Giles at February 26, 2005 07:00 PM

Yes, there is a term that describes what you mean - Dependency Theory.


Posted by Harry Powell at February 26, 2005 10:05 PM

How about globureaucracy?


Posted by Grayson at February 27, 2005 05:15 AM

How about "UNification"?

(yes...the capitalization is correct ;)


Posted by Michael Jones at February 27, 2005 06:56 AM

"Governmentization" or "Authoritization" would cover both the national and the global versions, thus leaving "Nationalisation" for the 3rd world to use, per Giles' comment.


Posted by Alisa at March 1, 2005 08:45 PM

It occurs to me that you might expect the word itself, 'globalisation' (I prefer an 's' in the middle there) ...

When Brits say "globalise," does the last syllable rhyme with "ice" or "size"? If the latter, why not just adopt the more widely used American forms "globalize" and "globalization"?


Posted by MDP at March 2, 2005 10:34 PM

Isnt nationalisation the complete opposite of globalisation? eg: in the mid-east there is a push to nationalise the work force (employ mainly mid-easterners native to the country)...so considering how different the mid-east culture is to western culture, then nationalisation in this context would seem to be going against globalisation.


Posted by Desert Dweller at March 3, 2005 10:10 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?


Enter anti-spambot Turing code:





Select some text and click this to format it as a quote Make the selected text bold Make the selected text italic Add a web link


Basic html active.

Alas, but for obscure reasons Mozilla, Mac and Linux users shall not harness to power of the push-button formatting options and shall therefore compose basic html with their bare hands. Yet Mozilla, Mac and Linux users shall not fear, for we shall reveal forthwith the mysteries of Basic Html:

<strong>This text in-between is bold</strong>

<em>This text is in italics</em>

And
<blockquote>This is a quote</blockquote>
Remember to close your opened tags as such: <tag> tagged text and closing </tag> and we promise you will get out of here alive.

For adding links, either use the link URL button on the toolbar or enter your code by hand in the following format:
<a href="http://www.your_link.com">your link text or description here</a>

Movable Type's anti-spambot e-mail address protection is enabled.

You are a guest on private property. Have fun but please be civil and succinct. Blogroaches will be persecuted, not to mention IP banned.

Long third party quotes or articles will also be deleted... so just link to articles you think are germane to your comment, don't quote the whole bloody thing.