Berserk and Politics (Warning: Rant Ahoy!)

[dialdfordesi]

Okay, I feel like being a dick here, but technically in literary terms Berserk is not an epic because it is not in verse. Other than that it is exactly what a literary epic is: a hero fighting against a world he can't control, there are points with gods and demons, and there are trips into the underworld. All it needs is to be in verse to be an epic in the true sense of the word, but then I bet you no one would read it.

Yeah it falls out of the definition of epic literature but I could definitely see Berserk as being a literary classic in the future. It just speaks about life on so many levels and is quite profound if you look for the deeper meanings.

[Istvan]

Okay, I feel like being a dick here, but technically in literary terms Berserk is not an epic because it is not in verse. Other than that it is exactly what a literary epic is: a hero fighting against a world he can't control, there are points with gods and demons, and there are trips into the underworld. All it needs is to be in verse to be an epic in the true sense of the word, but then I bet you no one would read it.

Yeah it falls out of the definition of epic literature but I could definitely see Berserk as being a literary classic in the future. It just speaks about life on so many levels and is quite profound if you look for the deeper meanings.

Are you sure about that, Herald? I grant that it can't be an epic poem (like the Illiad, the Aenead, or Paradise Lost, to name just a few) because it's not in verse, but does that really mean that it can't simply be an epic work of literature? I'm honestly not sure of the exact definitions here, but it seems like an epic work of liturature ought to be different than an epic poem. I could be wrong though.

[hbi2k]

I have one point on which I disagree: hbi2k, you stated that Berserk was a critique of capitalism, but you yourself initially discussed how much of this was intended. I would reword your later statement to, "Berserk can be interpreted as a critique of capitalism", because so many points fit.

A good point-- I may have been overstating my case toward the end there. (-:

[The Herald]

To Istvan,

I actually argued the point with my lit prof for about ten minutes until he put his foot down and said that in literary terms, as in those stuffy big wigs in universities, a story is not an epic if it is not in verse, but it can be epic like. Though, Berserk is a hell of a lot more epic than Paradise Lost, but it is similar to the old epics in how it is a fantasy retelling of actual history.

[Istvan]

To Istvan,

I actually argued the point with my lit prof for about ten minutes until he put his foot down and said that in literary terms, as in those stuffy big wigs in universities, a story is not an epic if it is not in verse, but it can be epic like. Though, Berserk is a hell of a lot more epic than Paradis Lost, but it is similar to the old epics in how it is a fantasy retelling of actual history.

OK, well then I suppose that answers that. Thanks, I wondered. So a literary epic and an epic poem are the same thing. Huh.

On another note, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a "fantasy retelling of actual history," more along the lines of a fantasy story with some similarities to actual history. I've read fantasy retellings of history, but I don't think Berserk qualifies as one.

[The Herald]

Berserk's similarity to history will always be argued, unless Miura says for sure whether it is or not. Because I am of Northern European ancestry, I like to think that Berserk is about that part of the world, where I can see how others would want to argue otherwise. Or some people are just analyzing it under a microscope, which is a good thing to do to a point. But when I compare Berserk to history it gives me a more meaningful experience. And I guess some epics like the Illiad are retelling history, but The Faerie Queene was just well written propaganda.

On another note, I would like to see the meaning of epic changed, but these university types who make all the rules don't like change. It's even hard in the sciences for them to change their ideals unless there is enough public outcry.

[Azrael]

Berserk is not literature *giggles*

lit·er·a·ture /ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.

Berserk does fit in with definition 1 *giggles*

Hahaha. pwned.

[Xandarg]

In defense of Smith's invisible hand, the theory requires an enlightened self-interest. It requires the actor/agent to, first of all, understand what really is in their own personal interest (what will increase their overall "utility," is how it is generally phrased). To a corporation this translates to increased profits, to a person this can mean many things, but the most basic is satisfaction or happiness (economics only takes utility to mean "goods" because it is a simplification that allows for human utility to be calculated in terms of dollars, a simplification that is the backbone of modern economic theory and one that is sometimes helpful in illuminating how humans behave, but certainly not something that always holds true.)

A corporation can choose to use cost-effective means of production that pollute the environment in order to turn a profit, but today we are seeing more and more corporations making an effort not to do this (though many still have a long way to go). Is this because corporations have suddenly become morally conscious? Nope, it is merely the invisible hand at work. Because our culture is becoming (at least superficially) more environmentally conscious, and because corporate "image" is important, corporations have begun reducing their ecological footprints. Essentially, if a CEO believes reducing emissions will lead to greater sales to environmentally conscious consumers, then he will be in favor of it as long as it is less costly than ignoring these consumers (Though for this to be true, it requires consumers to make it costly by voicing their opinions and inducing other consumers to care as well.) Now what about a person? A person can choose to use others in order to gain power, they can choose to kill, steal, and do anything it takes to gain strength or material possessions. However, these things are only "means" to happiness and not "ends" in themselves, and they serve as barriers to more fundamental grounds of human happiness -- meaningful human interaction and relationships. (There are many arguments for why why relationships are the fundamental basis for human happiness, from the evolution of primates as social animals to the near limitless cache of literature, fiction and non-, suggesting it. Indeed, it has become a moral platitude.) Thus, a truly enlightened self-interest would lead a person to treat others well so that they will be treated well in return while allowing relationships to form.

So, my question: Is Griffith really acting in his own self-interest? Or does he only imagine he is? Unless he truly thinks as a God, he can't be satisfied now. As long as he has a good-old-fashioned simian brain, whose thought processes authors and poets have written about for generations, he'll still need some kind of human relationship based in love and trust in order to be satisfied (Plus, he's referred to as the God of Longing, so you would imagine the "longing" didn't just refer to the things he longed for before his ascension into God Hand.) Perhaps Guts will wake him up to where his own self-interests truly lie, just as he did during the years they were together (as Griffith thinks as he is choosing to sacrifice Guts: "Only you made me forget my dream" -- since his dream was merely a superficial construct borne of his childhood's context, whereas Gattsu's friendship fulfilled a more fundamental human need).

[Istvan]

So, my question: Is Griffith really acting in his own self-interest? Or does he only imagine he is? Unless he truly thinks as a God, he can't be satisfied now. As long as he has a good-old-fashioned simian brain, whose thought processes authors and poets have written about for generations, he'll still need some kind of human relationship based in love and trust in order to be satisfied

This was a very interesting analyisis, but there were two points I'd like to mention. First, Griffith does have human interactions going on here. Many people idolize/love/respect him. These might not be the kinds of relationships that would satisfy a normal person, but they are relationships. Although (almost all) humans need interactions with others, the type of interaction they need/desire depends on the individual. Don't make the mistake of judging another's happiness/fulfilment on the basis of what would make you happy. Second, I don't know about him truly thinking "as a God" now, but he most definately does not think as a human would anymore (at least not a sane one). The manga makes clear that the eclipse is specifically intended to burn various human emotions/sentiments out of the person. It would not be at all surprising if Griffith doesn't feel whatever need for friendship that he used to possess.

[dialdfordesi]

During the eclipse it does seem that Griffith was manipulated by the fat members of the God Hand (I always forget their names, argh) to believe that he had to sacrifice the Hawks to achieve his kingdom. Even though at this point Griffith was disabled, Idea has made it clear that it had manipulated fate to bring Griffith to a situation where he would sacrifice the Hawks and become Femto. When Guts sees the crippled and tortured Griffith, Griffith immediately tries to choke Guts, which shows that Griffith blames Guts for what had happened, so I guess it could also be argued that because Idea and the God Hand are symbols of our darker desires and by agreeing with Idea, Griffith becoming Femto symbolically represents him giving into the desire to get his revenge on Guts. That would mean that in his despair, Femto did rationally choose to kill off the Hawks and wasn't just manipulated to do it.

[Istvan]

During the eclipse it does seem that Griffith was manipulated by the fat members of the God Hand (I always forget their names, argh) to believe that he had to sacrifice the Hawks to achieve his kingdom.

Well, sort of. I'm not sure how much you can call what he did "manipulation," and Griffith really isn't all that open to manipulation in the first place. Note that everything the fat one said was true. Sacrificing the Hawks was the only way to achieve his kingdom, the torturer had crippled him too badly for any other method to work. If he'd at least still had his tounge, something might have been possible, but as it was there was no way. Griffith himself saw that clearly when he imagined (right befor the eclipse) what the future might look like. It is also clear that he totally rejects that future, hence the suicide attempt. In the end, the fat God's Hand mostly just helped make clear to Griffith what his own mind/choices were. To achieve his dream, there was only one path remaining to Griffith, and I can't imagine him ever making a different choice. Griffith is defined by his willingness to do whatever he must to achieve his dream. Oh sure, if he hadn't been tortured he wouldn't have sacrificed the Hawks (had the offer been made), because he'd have wanted to achieve it on his own. But when the only way to achieve his dream is through the sacrifice, such a decision is the only one he could make. I think Griffith was entirely rational and clear sighted at the time. He knew exactly what he was choosing, and made that choice anyway.

That would mean that in his despair, Femto did rationally choose to kill off the Hawks and wasn't just manipulated to do it.

See above.

When Guts sees the crippled and tortured Griffith, Griffith immediately tries to choke Guts, which shows that Griffith blames Guts for what had happened, so I guess it could also be argued that because Idea and the God Hand are symbols of our darker desires and by agreeing with Idea, Griffith becoming Femto symbolically represents him giving into the desire to get his revenge on Guts.

I doubt it. Several things make it clear that Griffith still cared about Guts before the Eclipse. Note especially his thoughts just before Guts arrives at his cell, and the fight against Wyald. If you pay attention, it's clear that when Guts gets in trouble, Griffith wants to help him, to save him, as he has before. The fact that he can't helps drive home to Griffith how helpless he has become. At the end, as he stares into Guts eyes while choosing to make the sacrifice, I don't think "revenge" entered into it at all. Rather, he was cold-bloodedly placing his dream ahead of his friendship to Guts. Before, he allowed his friendship to cause him to loose sight of his dream. Here he's doing the opposite. It was an entirely rational, cold-blooded decision on his part, but it is painful(at the time), causing him to cry "the last tears" he ever would shed.

[Xandarg]

Interesting posts guys. I think Griffith was only manipulated in so far as the God's Hand reminded him of the great importance he had once placed on his dream before Guts made him lose sight of it. The fact that Griffith is crippled really leaves him with no options, but I believe he would have made the same decision even if he were still able-bodied. The Griffith who had known friendship and camaraderie with Guts was satisfied, not in the sense that he was done striving for a better material life, but at least in a spiritual sense, more so than the childhood Griffith who grew up on the streets thinking that the only way to fulfillment was "the castle" that he sought, which symbolized wealth/status/power in the vision shown him during the eclipse. The God's Hand did not manipulate him so much as bring his state of mind back to where it was during his childhood, which, granted, was much easier since he was (due to being crippled) just as powerless as he was as a child.

I don't know about him truly thinking "as a God" now, but he most definately does not think as a human would anymore (at least not a sane one). The manga makes clear that the eclipse is specifically intended to burn various human emotions/sentiments out of the person. It would not be at all surprising if Griffith doesn't feel whatever need for friendship that he used to possess.

That's true, I suppose there is no way of telling if he really does think as a human at this point. However, we don't know much about the God's Hand (well, I'm only on vol19, so don't tell me if anything awesome happens.) Since they have never had to face someone stronger than themselves, since their power has never been challenged, they have never had to re-examine their own views. So I think it will be very interesting to see how they react if Guts is able to kill one, what their dying thoughts will be, etc. If Griffith's last thoughts are that all of this power was meaningless after all, and the last thing he thinks about are his good memories with Guts, then whether or not his power and ability to dominate others had made him happy would be pretty clear (Not to base an argument off of conjecture at future events, which is rationally flawed of course.) Basically what I'm saying is, it's tough to tell if Griffith needs friendship to be happy or not right now because he is still in a dominant position. But, as stated above, I think he certainly needed it when he was still human because it changed him from someone craving "the castle" as a means to fix whatever pain of longing he felt (an infantile level of development) into someone who no longer felt that pain, which is why he lost sight of his "dream." The dream of seeking power as an ends instead of a means is arguably a personality disorder that he was cured of by Guts, and the God's Hand caused him to relapse. I think Miura would have us believe that the friendship Griffith had with Guts led to a truer happiness than his quest for power; there are certainly themes present in each story arc/vignette showing that seeking to dominate others only leads to isolation. Miura has created many characters that are seeking "the castle," and all of them are shown to die in anguish (generally after having transformed into a giant monster and getting cleaved in twain by Guts' giant hunk of metal, but I digress.)

[dialdfordesi]

Your arguments make a lot of sense, Istvan. I guess I'm just retarded at this analyzing Berserk stuff, haha.

[Istvan]

Interesting posts guys. I think Griffith was only manipulated in so far as the God's Hand reminded him of the great importance he had once placed on his dream before Guts made him lose sight of it. The fact that Griffith is crippled really leaves him with no options, but I believe he would have made the same decision even if he were still able-bodied.

I disagree completely. Even if he had never met Guts, without being crippled and having his dream completely destroyed I don't think Griffith would ever have accepted the offer of the God's Hand. Griffith had a lot of pride, and would have wanted to achieve his dream on his own, with his own power, if he could. Yes, the Hawks helped him achieve it, but they all offered their aid and their power was subordinate to his. In accepting the sacrifice, Griffith is basically leaning on the power of a force greater than himself. Only his inability to achieve his dream by any other means would have induced someone as proud as Griffith to do such a thing. Even without this, he might not have. Griffith did care for the Hawks, even if not as friends. Consider the Caska flash-back where Griffith slept with the noble for cash, so that fewer of the Hawks would have to die in battle. He was willing to sacrifice them when necessary, but did try to preserve them when possible, even when doing so involved a personal sacrifice. I just can't see him accepting the sacrifice if he'd had any alternatives left for persuing his dream. Guts was necessary because only he could cause Griffith to fall into the complete ruin that would lead to him accepting the offer of the God's Hand.

The Griffith who had known friendship and camaraderie with Guts was satisfied, not in the sense that he was done striving for a better material life, but at least in a spiritual sense, more so than the childhood Griffith who grew up on the streets thinking that the only way to fulfillment was "the castle" that he sought, which symbolized wealth/status/power in the vision shown him during the eclipse. The God's Hand did not manipulate him so much as bring his state of mind back to where it was during his childhood, which, granted, was much easier since he was (due to being crippled) just as powerless as he was as a child.

I personally see Griffith's dream as being much more than this. Griffith is in no way a simple character, and I think using such basic explanations/metaphors for his actions and beliefs will cause you to miss a lot.

[Xandarg]

Griffith did care for the Hawks, even if not as friends. Consider the Caska flash-back where Griffith slept with the noble for cash, so that fewer of the Hawks would have to die in battle. He was willing to sacrifice them when necessary, but did try to preserve them when possible, even when doing so involved a personal sacrifice.

Good point, I had forgotten about that. My explanation does oversimplify Griffith. I suppose the problem is I have been comparing him to many of the other, more one-dimensional villains thus far, so I've only been thinking about one aspect of a character that is multifaceted. I guess I've been biased against him ever since he raped Caska... Not cool, Griffith, not cool.

That being said, Griffith's dream isn't necessarily unchanging. I think my analysis is relatively correct for the dream that Griffith formed as a child, but it grew and became more complex as he grew. When we first met him, his dream encompassed the Hawks as well, and grew to encompass Guts, etc. But if his dream was so grand, why did he throw it all away when Guts left? I don't think he would have approached the throne the way he did unless Guts had served as the catalyst for that event. Griffith would be smart enough to know that having his way with the princess wouldn't get him into the royal family. I had imagined he would court her in a way more in line with his position, the way the previous general had. When he had sex with her, it seemed like more of a power/control thing, spawned by the collapse of his own mental construction where he was the one in control of everything (shattered when Guts bested him with the sword and left). Isn't Griffith's tragic flaw his need for control? Of course a person can be multi-layered, but this seems to me like it is at least one aspect of his personality. I think my previous analysis makes more sense in the context that "the castle" = control (at it's most basic level, control of your circumstances). If I look at it this way, I start to see the manga's religious themes in a different light. I don't remember the name of that giant heart thing that Griffith talked to (the one that was a deity created by mankind's collective subconscious), but didn't he basically say that human beings created God so they could have some control over their lives? I may be mixing in themes from one of my philosophy/theology classes, but isn't religion just a way of getting control over all of the things that harm living things? Before medicine, agriculture, etc., people were completely helpless in the face of nature, so to feel like they had control of their circumstances/destiny they created rituals that they believed could affect the natural world.

Hmm, well, I promise I'm not just talking out of my ass to "win" an "argument," even if that's what it looks like. I really just think Berserk and the posts you guys have been writing are thought provoking stuff and, even though I'm a forum newbie, I wanted to add to the discourse. I actually joined up cause I wanted to help translate Japanese to English (well, try... I'm not exactly fluent), but Eldo said he's got nothing that needs translating at the moment. On a whim I started reading Berserk. I've read 28 volumes in the last few days! Awesome manga.

Istvan, what do you think Griffith's prime motivation is? And do you think it has changed at all since his childhood?

Thanks.

[The Prince]

I'm not Istvan, but surely he'd agree.......

Griffith's prime motivation has been to score with Guts.

[Xandarg]

Griffith's prime motivation has been to score with Guts.

Interesting... I'll have to give this some serious consideration.

[Istvan]

That being said, Griffith's dream isn't necessarily unchanging. I think my analysis is relatively correct for the dream that Griffith formed as a child, but it grew and became more complex as he grew. When we first met him, his dream encompassed the Hawks as well, and grew to encompass Guts, etc. But if his dream was so grand, why did he throw it all away when Guts left? I don't think he would have approached the throne the way he did unless Guts had served as the catalyst for that event. Griffith would be smart enough to know that having his way with the princess wouldn't get him into the royal family. I had imagined he would court her in a way more in line with his position, the way the previous general had. When he had sex with her, it seemed like more of a power/control thing, spawned by the collapse of his own mental construction where he was the one in control of everything (shattered when Guts bested him with the sword and left). Isn't Griffith's tragic flaw his need for control?

True, Griffith's dream did change, but only in the nature of as he grew older he gained a better appreciation of what that dream meant/involved. His desire for a kingdom of his own never changed. And for quite a while, his dream was the most important thing to him. What changed was becoming friends with Guts. Guts had become (without Griffith realizing it) extremely important to him, his first, and only, friend. When Guts left (and Griffith suffered his first defeat), he realized just how much Guts had come to mean to him. But he'd lost Guts. So he threw himself at his dream, in an attempt to compensate for the incredible loss he was feeling. Originally, of course he'd planned a slower approach to the Princess. As a Count he would have slowly worked his way up in stature among the nobles (through skilled political manuevering) and seduced the princess until he could marry her. It was Guts leaving, and the devestation that caused him to feel, which made Griffith abandon that slower plan and just hurl himself at his dream. And it's clear that he knew even at the time that he was unlikely to get away with it. Note that before going off to Princess Charlotte he arranged for the Hawks to all gather together on horse back the next day. If he hadn't done that, they'd all have been slaughtered when the Midland army came. He knew in advance the likely outcome of this path. At some level he probably even wanted it (note how little effort he made to resist being captured), as he was being rather self-destructive. His only friend had abandoned him, seemingly indifferent to Griffith. It's understandable that Griffith was in part suicidally depressed.

I don't remember the name of that giant heart thing that Griffith talked to (the one that was a deity created by mankind's collective subconscious), but didn't he basically say that human beings created God so they could have some control over their lives?

No, not at all. Idea of Evil (that's what it's called) was created not to give people control over their lives, but to give them reasons; specifically reasons for suffering. In Berserk, every time a person looses a loved one, and cry out "Why God did you let this happen?", or a priest comforts the grieving by assuring them it is "part of God's plan", and so on, they are creating Idea. People like to think that when bad things happen there's a reason for them, even if they don't know what that reason is. Idea is there to be that reason. Every time something bad happens to someone, Idea caused it. It is the reason, causing suffering is its purpose of existence.

As a final note, I think sumarizing Griffith's dream as a desire for "control" is still far too simplistic and one dimentional. His dream is not something that can be boiled down like that, nor does Griffith truly seem to exhibit the nature of a control-freak.

[Xandarg]

All I can honestly say to that is that I agree. Really, good analysis. Ummm, looking at my explanations and then at yours, I suppose I have to admit my brain likes coming up with extemporaneous, non-sequitur bull-shit. I end up remembering the stuff I thought about while reading Berserk, instead of remembering what was written! Guess I need to read more carefully. Thanks for your insight.

[Istvan]

All I can honestly say to that is that I agree. Really, good analysis. Ummm, looking at my explanations and then at yours, I suppose I have to admit my brain likes coming up with extemporaneous, non-sequitur bull-shit.

Don't sell yourself too short. I may disagree with your analysis, but it's better thought out and more on point than a lot of things I've seen people theorize. Even if they aren't (in my opinion, for what that's worth) true, you raise points that are worth thinking about. Keep it up.

I end up remembering the stuff I thought about while reading Berserk, instead of remembering what was written! Guess I need to read more carefully.

Yeah, that can be a problem. Especially the first time through, when rushing through the story because of how awesome it is, it can be easy to miss things. There are some series (ex. Bleach, One Piece) that even if they're really good one doesn't have to think/read too deeply into. Things are generally fairly clear, and easy to understand. Then there are series like Berserk (or Neo Genesis Evangelion) where it's really essetial to dig and look deeply into things. Very little is simple, and it all deserves being thought over. It's amazing how many elements and little points one can pick up on the second (or third) reading, and the story is well worth re-reading in its own right.

[Xandarg]

Don't sell yourself too short. I may disagree with your analysis, but it's better thought out and more on point than a lot of things I've seen people theorize. Even if they aren't (in my opinion, for what that's worth) true, you raise points that are worth thinking about. Keep it up.

Istvan makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Well, guess I don't need this Behelit anymore!

[Rolos]

All I can honestly say to that is that I agree. Really, good analysis. Ummm, looking at my explanations and then at yours, I suppose I have to admit my brain likes coming up with extemporaneous, non-sequitur bull-shit.

Don't sell yourself too short. I may disagree with your analysis, but it's better thought out and more on point than a lot of things I've seen people theorize. Even if they aren't (in my opinion, for what that's worth) true, you raise points that are worth thinking about. Keep it up.

I end up remembering the stuff I thought about while reading Berserk, instead of remembering what was written! Guess I need to read more carefully.

Yeah, that can be a problem. Especially the first time through, when rushing through the story because of how awesome it is, it can be easy to miss things. There are some series (ex. Bleach, One Piece) that even if they're really good one doesn't have to think/read too deeply into. Things are generally fairly clear, and easy to understand. Then there are series like Berserk (or Neo Genesis Evangelion) where it's really essetial to dig and look deeply into things. Very little is simple, and it all deserves being thought over. It's amazing how many elements and little points one can pick up on the second (or third) reading, and the story is well worth re-reading in its own right.

*nodding sage-like*
True......I remember the first time I read berserk..............every time I stopped reading (because of annoying needs like sleeping and eating ) I started to think about what I had just read and its implications. Even now, being the third time I re-read berserk, I find new meanings to...well....everything.
To truly understand the complexity of the story you have to read it more than once, because it helps you look at the facts with more perspective.
For example, If at first you only saw the transformation of Griffith to Femto as him becoming "evil",then the second time, comparing it to what you have read ahead, you realize that what he was doing was stripping himself from everything that would prevent him from achieving his dream, like emotions.

Anyway, welcome Xandarg!! Good to see that more people like Itsvan is joining EG. People who can (unlike me) coherently elaborate theories without loosing focus are always needed here.

PD: By the way...Xandarg, after reading your analysis of corporations and environmentalism, I have to recommend you this book: "Making Globalization work" by Joseph E. Stiglitz

[Xandarg]

PD: By the way...Xandarg, after reading your analysis of corporations and environmentalism, I have to recommend you this book: "Making Globalization work" by Joseph E. Stiglitz

I actually read a bit of his "Globalization and Its Discontents" in my Ethics, Religion, and International Politics class, but I can't for the life of me remember what his positions were versus all the other readings we had (that class was hell, though informative). In fact, that class has completely globalization-ed me out, so I appreciate the recommendation but I don't think I will need to know any more about globalization until I'm actually a policy maker, lol. I'll keep it on my reading list though, I never know when I'll get my social-justice 2nd wind.

Maybe I don't have to read Stiglitz if he and I already hold the same opinions... Does he believe in free markets for the third world but only in so far as there is some kind of distributive justice taking place (ie. free markets increase wealth/GDP, but generally increase the income gap (pushing even more people past the poverty line, while elevating some to riches), so part of the wealth that is brought in to the third world needs to go into government social development programs)?

[Rolos]

PD: By the way...Xandarg, after reading your analysis of corporations and environmentalism, I have to recommend you this book: "Making Globalization work" by Joseph E. Stiglitz

I actually read a bit of his "Globalization and Its Discontents" in my Ethics, Religion, and International Politics class, but I can't for the life of me remember what his positions were versus all the other readings we had (that class was hell, though informative). In fact, that class has completely globalization-ed me out, so I appreciate the recommendation but I don't think I will need to know any more about globalization until I'm actually a policy maker, lol. I'll keep it on my reading list though, I never know when I'll get my social-justice 2nd wind.

Maybe I don't have to read Stiglitz if he and I already hold the same opinions... Does he believe in free markets for the third world but only in so far as there is some kind of distributive justice taking place (ie. free markets increase wealth/GDP, but generally increase the income gap (pushing even more people past the poverty line, while elevating some to riches), so part of the wealth that is brought in to the third world needs to go into government social development programs)?

Thats a very good way to sum things up dude, but if you have read the whole book ( I am talking about "Globalization and its discontents") you should already know that the problems of the way globalization is being managed are a little more complex.
I just told you to read "Making Globalization work" because it is a very good book and it could help you refine your corporation-environment theory.

I also support globalization, I just don't like the way it is being managed so some special interests (big fat oil corporations CEOs) can keep making money despite the consequences for the rest of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to congratulate you for your redacting skills. You are almost as good as Itsvan and that makes you worthy of........

Pd: I read both books for fun.......yes, I am that boring.

Pd2: On a second thought, what global economy really needs is a Black swordsman. I will slip that proposal in my country's presidential candidates agenda some day.

[Xandarg]

Pd: I read both books for fun.......yes, I am that boring.

Haha, you and I can be friends then.

Pd2: On a second thought, what global economy really needs is a Black swordsman. I will slip that proposal in my country's presidential candidates agenda some day.

Smartest political suggestion I've heard in a while.