back
8 comments
>>Conrad’s world shimmers beneath the surface of our own. Today Internet cables run along the seafloor beside the old telegraph wires. Conrad’s characters whisper in the ears of new generations of antiglobalization protestors and champions of free trade, liberal interventionists and radical terrorists, social justice activists and xenophobic nativists. And there’s no better emblem of globalization today than the container ship, which has made transport so cheap that it’s more cost-efficient to catch a fish in Scotland, send it to China to be filleted, then send it back to Europe for sale, than it is to hire laborers in situ. Ninety percent of world trade travels by sea, which makes ships and sailors more central to the world economy today than ever before.

I don't understand how you can be "anti-globalist" and "pro free trade", aren't those two things opposite?

Yes, they’re opposites, like the two other categorizations in that sentence (“liberal interventionists and radical terrorists, social justice activists and xenophobic nativists”). The author is saying that the rich cast of characters in Conrad’s novels has something for everyone.
Thank you, my reading comprehension skills were failing me big time today.
Free trade is a local decision, simply don't apply tariffs and export duties. Globalization is the idea that these decisions can be made elsewhere and enforced everywhere without respect to local opinion or values or tradeoffs.
Don't all parties of free trade agreements actually agree to the agreement? Isn't that why it's called an agreement? Are there any examples of non-state parties making this decision elsewhere and enforcing it everywhere?
Locally, a community can decide to remove tariffs and export duties irrespective of reciprocity. The only agreement required is within the community.

As for non-state parties, perhaps in part that depends on how one does or does not view organizations like the WTO (World Trade Organization) and is not a question I find very interesting to discuss on the internet as there is merit in both opinions and the basis for holding one or the other is typically externally rooted. I suppose it also might depend on one's view regarding the political legitimacy of anarchy and the economic legitimacy of black markets and similar points of order and those are also not questions I find particularly interesting to discuss on the internet for similar reasons.

Though I suppose participation and non-participation in black markets might be a minimal viable example of free trade as local and limited decision.

I think from its inception the concept of "free trade" has been a bit woolly and subject to change based on the interests of whomever was arguing for it.
In my opinion this essay about Conrad is a bit more interesting and insightful: http://kirbyk.net/hod/image.of.africa.html

I wouldn't go so far as to say I agree with the assessment that Heart of Darkness can't be a great work because of its flaws, but I think it answers some of the questions the author of this piece claims to be puzzled about.