Globalization and politics have nothing to do with each other. There are many different kinds of diversification in globalization. Politics is one of those areas. The approach to political globalization emphasizes the diverse aspects of globalization. There is a topic that people often confuse. The fact that globalization and democracy are interpreted in the same meaning. This topic develops more and more, and it is often interpreted that the spread of democracy is the end of ideology. Given the meaning of ideology as a concept of ideology, it is unlikely that democracy and ideology will be divided into fundamentally hostile ideologies. However, ideology changes gradually as the times change. In these days, more ideology prevails as democratic spread prevails in times of age. This is a link between global communication and mass culture. As a result of the spread of democracy throughout the world, the perception of politics is not confined to one country, but it is transnational. Just like the past, borders can never interfere with people's communication. In this regard, global communication and geopolitical studies are a completely confrontational concept.
The concept of ' society ' in modern society does not simply mean one-dimensional spaces. Anti-capitalism, non-governmental organizations, civic groups, and civil society are examples. There is one thing in common. That is the fact that we respect the diversity of the population. To explain, democracy is not just a finished form of a certain country, but a variety of forms of organization that produce sporadic forms of production. And we should respect the different members of the productive tissue of the organisation. This phenomenon is independent of capitalism. In terms of capitalist interpretation, globalization reconfigures the nation around global capitalism.
Globalization is not a rigid theory but a substance. Globalization has a much greater impact on the relationship between politics and movement because it is much more flexible than the state of the nation. For instance, one person's mantle spread around the world to create a new sport. Globalization is a dominating and revolutionary phenomenon that transcends transcending borders, transcending languages, and transcending ideology. Before globalization, communication has caused political and cultural debates. Unfortunately, however, there was definitely a limit. It was entirely controlled by the elite or the organization of the society. The power of ordinary citizens and the words that the elites uttered were different from the right and wrong.
Emphasize that the public domain is not simply a spatial location. It seems easy to understand the concept of the ancient Greek era of Agora. The old Agora is meaningful in the sense that the participation of civic participation in politics was directly involved. The current public sector also considers the community on the network to be one of the agora and sees it as a violent debating place. Here's a point of thinking. If the public domain of a community based on globalization is a controversial place, will anyone else's remarks on anonymity be able to gain public trust? Maybe someone who doesn't listen to a person who doesn't listen to himself, and I'm going to turn all the other thoughts and minds out of me. Indeed, it is still unclear whether this is the advantage of globalization and the development of civil society.
The most interesting part is that totalitarianism means the elimination of civil society. Being totalitarian refers to the idea of a powerful state of affairs in which a powerful state authority instracts and controls a person's life. In Korea, however, it occurred to contradict the words. The candlelight revolution is the very thing. In Korea, the president of corruption and gukjjeong nongdan the angry people gathered as to form one's power. South Korean society also includes some form of totalitarianism. There is a judicial branch, and people are controlled by public authority. An example of such an institution, such as the NIS, is that totalitarianism is deeply embedded. However, South Koreans have raised questions about the power of the elites, including the elites, based on non-violent rule. The most important thing in the process surprised the whole world.
“Punishing the person who destroys democracy makes us the same person if we use undemocratic methods. Only democratic democracy returns when democratic resolutions penetrate undemocratic conduct.”
Democracy is also a means to express the general mistrust that is universally sought. If the majority of people in a group or a nation feel uncomfortable, we can easily resolve it because of the fact that it is ' democracy '. However, there is no merit in the democratic society. The basic principle of democracy is majority rule. The outcome depends on where the public opinion changes. If humans seek only the right thing, the majority rule is a good idea. But how will our society change if people who eat bad minds take the majority? The result of the democratic process is not necessarily democratic. Do we want a democratic process or a democratic outcome? Can't we get both of them?
No comments:
Post a Comment