Marketing, ecommerce, and contemporary blog!

This day and age we look at things from two unique perspectives. Among them is what you call a post-institutional outlook in which we are seeing that basic institutions that we have taken for granted and have become an essential part of our lives for centuries are just withering away. One of the main reasons why institutions as we know them has been around quite for some time is that they embody what is known as a nation-state society. A nation state is one that has at its base or cover a central governement that allows diversity and toleration for different religions and religous beliefs, ethnicities and social classes. Much has been talked and concluded about the setbacks and the benfits of what is the nation-state and exactly for now how long it too will last. The nation-state itself has been a model for what many First World countries like the US model themselves after and tries to spread through out the world. The situation in Iraq only shows that whatever is left of divulging a Post-Saddam Hussein government can easily be up for grabs, much less going back to look at the fruits of what the nation-state in rebuilding Iraq as useless and a waste of time. The two world views that encompassed what is next or what would succeed a post-nation-state order is based on the conversations between two famous writers, they are Samuel Huntington and Anthony Giddens. Huntington believes that the conflict in the world today is between fundamentalist cultures vis-a-vis democratic cultures while Giddens believes that dilemna we live in is between those share a cosmopolitan outlook as opposed to those who shares more of a local view of the world they inhabit. Each views offers a unique perspective and much truth about what is going on in the world today, again especailly in place of Iraq. It is true that there is no perfect concept of democracy and that the type of democracy that is being exported throughout the world is that of the US. Moreover the reason why the US has such a strong edge in doing so is not just only because she is physically a superpower(albeit she ,from a standpoint from moral ethics, isn't one) but more so because her culture is truly democratic in practice and in outlook. Exporting democracy these days in order for it to be successful requires that those cultures as well must be inherently democratic. Here where Huntington is right; the chances that a democracy will thrive in Iraq-- whereas the problems in Iraq is a matter of implementing a rule of law, rebuilding an economy where as I often theorized there is no market framework anything short of a information tech economy, closing the gap on age old rife and enmities that crosses different ethnicities and historocities, and deep political tension due to the war itself--remains next to nothing.

Yet there is a truth to Giddens side of the equation and that has to do that what is damaging American success in Iraq is that Al Queada and her protege are more advance in the cosmopolitan way of things. They are by far apart of the digital divide that is increasingly shaping the world we live and perhaps a basis in understanding the fundamentals of violence, social inequalities and violence. However they are not the ones that have been left out. The chief driving force of the digital divide in a Weberian way of looking at things is the internet. Remeber the internet is the growth or super growth of exchanging of information that can be harness by a small personal computer. Yet this way of exchanging information as we do so now is transitory and will have to be replaced by other means(that is with molecular nannnotechnology--afterall from a perspective borrowed from Isabel Paterson 'The God of the Machine' it is the energy and forces from the World Trade Center attacks is evident of such). From Gidden's perspective there is an overlap how certain cultures and groups are surviving these days. So it will be asserted that 1)the powers that be that are shaping the world is by far much larger and more powerful anything of the nation-state 2) looking at moral ethics has by far shifted with the rise and somewhat strange success of Al Queada being able to shape the outcome of the world and 3) all political and social models that is being taught will have to add these untimely variables. Thus an age of the digital divide does not mean those who are excluded precisely because they are illiterate or lack a cosmopolitan way of approaching matters at hand but it is just a matter who can get access to such a wealth of information and use it to project thier feelings on the world at large. We see that with the recent decapitation of Nicholas Berg which was posted on a pro-Al Queda website.

It can according to a Giddens point of view push things in a more positive and socially progressive light as in the case of the recent election of Spain. It is not here to say whose views are stronger but to shed some light on what is out there for us to use as a basis as far as how to look at the world.

The other factor or viewpoint that is controlling how things being seen in this day and age is a Post-Soviet look at people. One of the mistakes in understanding at how to look at people and to view them in light of the decline of communism and Soviet philosophy is that it must be done so by a pre-Soviet or from a pre-Marxist perspective, such that all religous ways of looking at things must be considered. So it would be assumed that people contrary to Lenin or for that matter Marx, that people have souls and they have lineage and historicity. This sounds great but this way of looking at matters only takes too seriously the nostalgia the critics of Marxism and socialism has long been deep seated. In fact a better approach would be a mixed of a Smithian and a Giddened approach that on the one hand that as times flies or elapses people has a tendency to forget and that how they forget is shaped not necessarily by a labor policy but how fast and astute government and the general opinion can grasp what constitutes a labor policy--among them if we are living in a post-Soviet era the notion that tobacco, rum, cotton, rice and perfumes will make a comeback in its atavistic guise of slavery and labor exploitation as people are being more inclined and feeling more freely to do so, assert or re-examined their own cultural identity--and that the market frameworks for such an economy doesn't exist anymore;but on the other hand, that due to industrialization and conspicous consumption, nature as we see it just doesn't exist anymore. It is these divergent factors makes up a forum how to view people from a post-Soviet light. This I think can applies to all fields. Thus the by product of manking and individuals from this perspective is perhaps the more precise and accurate way of looking at him and her and them.

Either way these two perspectives are in themselves powerful and might explain some of the unforeseeable things you hear in the news such as why is Al Queada is growing larger not smaller, why is there is an impending if not already underway a technological revolution, that will revolutionize the way wars are fought, justice is demanded and implemented and so on.