|
|
自由化 -- 帝國主義的木馬?
|
瀏覽3,055 ｜回應2｜推薦0 |
|
|
|
據中國時報報導：
「美國麻省理工學院（MIT）史隆管理學院副院長拉賽德昨（二十三）日表示，台灣自由化的程度，還可以再更快」。
他的建議是：
「政府就必須在教育、獎勵研發以及提供中小企業同步與國際接軌的能力，...
利用企業在技術、經營管理的能力拓展兩岸三地市場，...
加強與跨國大企業的策略聯盟與合作；... 亦即市場要更加開放。 ...
(解除)資金匯入與對外投資的用途(限制)，... (及)台灣的外銀與國內中小企業往來的業務(限制)，...」
(括號內的字是我依照他的意思更改，來符合摘錄的語氣。)
在討論自由化和全球化的議題時，我們必須了解這是一場起跑點不平等的競賽。也就是說，它不是一個雙向均勢的相互往來，而是「跨國企業」挾著排山倒海的能量和資源自由的在全球漫步，將開發中國家(你可以翻譯成：落後國家)化為經濟附庸的行動。例如：
所謂「加強與跨國大企業的策略聯盟與合作」中的「策略聯盟與合作」，你可以翻譯成：「跨國大企業的兼併(take-over)」；
所謂「(解除) ... (限制)」，你可以翻譯成：「將 ... 變成金融租界」。
原則上我並不反對自由化和全球化，但我們必須認清自己的實力和身份，在推動(或被迫接受)自由化和全球化的時候，
一定要明白別人為什麼要推動自由化和全球化。
一定要有自衛的配套措施，一定要在對自己有利的情況下來推動。
附錄：
2003.10.24 中國時報
拉賽德：台灣自由化程度還可更快 洪川詠/台北報導
美國麻省理工學院（MIT）史隆管理學院副院長拉賽德昨（二十三）日表示，台灣以中小企業為主的經濟體要持續保持成功，政府就必須在教育、獎勵研發以及提供中小企業同步與國際接軌的能力，因此資金、人力、技術與實體的流通應該完全沒有障礙，「台灣自由化的程度，還可以再更快」。
對於台灣加入WTO之後以及最近政府在推動兩岸直航、取消QFII制等各種自由化的措施，拉賽德表示「這只是第一步，還有一半以上的工作還沒做」。他強調，過去五十年在沒有依賴大陸的情況下可以創造經濟奇蹟，現在中國大陸已經崛起，並以低廉的工資成為全球製造中心，台灣如果能夠利用企業在技術、經營管理的能力拓展兩岸三地市場，沒有理由不會再繼續創造繁榮。
拉賽德 ...，認為 ... (但)中小企業變大之後勢必面臨瓶頸，此時就須加強與跨國大企業的策略聯盟與合作；... 亦即市場要更加開放。
至於台灣還能做的有哪些？拉賽德舉例說，... 但台灣目前對於資金匯入與對外投資的用途設限，多數資金不願匯回，反而扼殺了本地產業升級投資的機會。此外在台灣的外銀與國內中小企業往來的業務受限，對中小企業的全球化，也有不利影響。
|
|
|
|
1. 「全球化」的意義
在國家層次，經濟活動是國力的基礎。在國際層次，國力是經濟活動的前鋒。「全球化」的意思是：「我要到你家後院擺個攤子，促銷(強迫中獎？)給你不是生活必需的產品」。美國、歐盟(的大財團)推動全球化的原因，目的要擴張它們奇技淫巧的市場。第三世界反對全球化，就是怕辛辛苦苦賺來的血汗錢被吸光。換句話說，「全球化」是「帝國主義」財團對抗關稅政策的意識型態。WTO則是「帝國主義」財團消滅保護關稅的木馬。此地的政客在台灣政府沒有長期政策、產業/學術界沒有尖端技術、企業界沒有獨家產品的情況下，還要掛著「全球化」的羊頭侈言「發展經濟」，台灣很快就會淪為「消費殖民地」(或「後關稅殖民地」)這塊「狗肉」。
(摘錄自: 【FOKAS - 社會區】《評親民黨主席宋楚瑜先生的《建構台灣未來的願景》》)
2. 「全球化」的實際
加入 WTO後，「政府」官僚在保護國內企業和上述產業升級的職責功能，更形重要。談判不當，就造成「全球化」時代的「割地賠款」。這種「協商代表」及其主管政務官稱之為「賣台集團」決不為過。「智財權」的協商就是當前的例子。立法院也必須負擔把關的任務(相關法案的審議)。這是民主制度的好處。一個「賣台集團」還不一定能成交，要兩個「賣台集團」狼狽為奸才行。
(摘錄自: 【FOKAS - 社會區】《什麼是政策？》)
FOKAS: http://www.fokas.com.tw/
|
|
全球化 之 The Pentagon s New Map
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
大家看看Mr. Barnett的"The Pentagon's New Map"原文(請見所附網址)，才能了解什麼是"全球化"。Barnett的文章是杭廷頓理論的教戰手冊。
一些"買辦"型的學者，讀書不求甚解，搞不清楚狀況，成天談"自由化"或"全球化"。真的是被人賣了還在幫人數鈔票。
On "The Pentagons New Map"
This is a brief commentary on Mr. Barnett s troubling article - "The Pentagon s New Map" (Barnett, 2003).
The word "globalization" was used 26 times in Mr. Barnett s paper, "globalizing" twice just for the record, without in a single instance elucidating or explaining the concept. I am sure it is a household term in a globalizing period. However, if one is going to base his or her whole "theory" on a single word, it is an advantageous practice for that person to grasp the idea in a clear and distinct manner, let alone as a good will gesture toward the uninitiated and the to be damned.
After looking into his "dividing line" carefully, anyone will want to know how did Mr. Barnett apply his classification schemata. Was he using an "us-them" scheme, or was he using a "submissive-assertive" (relative to the U. S.) scheme？or if he had one at all？
Mr. Barnett lamented " too many experts treat it (globalization) as a binary outcome". Yet, right after that comment, Mr. Barnett himself presented his "theory" in a "binary" map, a "global" map to boot. May be I should call it a "tertiary" map counting the "seam states". But will one extra pole render Mr. Barnett s a thicker "theory"?
Secondly, the phenomenon of 'globalization' was treated as a single, homogeneous, omni-benevolent concept. The purpose, function, and the obvious polarizing-characteristics of 'globalization' was never analyzed or even mentioned. As if he has never heard of the proverbial "one person's meat is another's poison."
Globalization is the ideology, with the WTO playing the role of the Trojan horse, used by the developed nations, the "Core" in Mr. Barnett's terminology, to battle and circumvent the theory and practice of using tariff to keep unwanted products out of the poor countries, the "Gap" in Mr. Barnett's terminology. The latter cannot afford these products in the first place, and worse, they are draining the capital crucially needed for gaining the entry into the globalization game, shall we call it the "globalizability"? In addition to capital, a state of course also needs technologies and products to play the game. Which means education, research and development, management skill, to name just a few.
With this understanding, we can state in binary fashion that there are two opposing teams in the globalization game: the globalizing one and the globalized one. By the way, I do not claim to have read all books on the big G theory. I have yet to see anyone to make the distinction in the way presented here.
Let us pause for a moment to consider, if globalization is such a glamorous and enchanting game as Mr. Barnett made it out to be, how did some states always get to be in the 'doing' team, and the other always get to be in the 'done' team for as long as we remember？ Historically, we all know how the West Europeans robbed and butchered their way to get qualified in the globalizing team. And Mr. Barnett is its self-appointed cheerleader chanting："We have not robbed and butchered enough. Go! Go! Go! It is our 'burden' and 'responsibility' to kill them all! Glo! Glo! Glo!" May be this is Darwinian, but in a civilized world, it sure sounds awfully like someone who has just lost his or her shingle somewhere.
To his credit, Mr. Barnett did use the word 'aid' once in the entire paper, the handout connotation not withstanding. The "Shrinking the Gap" mentality (it sounds like "Nuke the Gap" to me) is truly amazing and befuddling, not to say horrifying, in light of his awareness of the "historically" edifying Vietnam experience and familiarity with such smooth and state-of-the-art terms like "thin", "thick", "Darwinian", "paradigm", "disconnectedness", "historical process", etc. God bless America!
附註：
"The Pentagon's New Map"原文網址：http://groups.msn.com/gdu0jbnu4dgbqgjebvn4stsi02/general.msnwaction=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=460&LastModified=4675440906244711816
(本文原載"FOKAS，知識區"FOKAS: http://www.fokas.com.tw/)
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
