Bookmark and Share

Viewed 750 times

Did Charles Taze Russell invent the concept of globalization?

    M slimboyfat posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:35:50 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 6676 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    I was doing a regular search for Jehovah's Witnesses and related terms in google scholar and I came across this weird statement in a paper about globalization:

    "The earliest written theoretical concepts of globalization were penned by an American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell."

    The footnote references a recent edition of Russell's book The Battle of Armageddon, and that's the last the author says about the matter as what follows is a technical discussion of globalization.

    So what's that all about?

    M slimboyfat posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:38:13 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 6677 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3695.pdf

    Which has been published in the journal Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications

    M slimboyfat posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:45:49 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 6678 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    And here is a different article that states Charles Taze Russel invented the term "corporate giants". Is there something to this? Charles Taze Russell, the great theorist of globalization and international capitalism? I have never heard anything about this!

    See:

    "Trafficking of Women in India and the Effect of Globalization on it" by Tushar Chowdhary

    Nambo posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:49:36 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 502 of 584
    Joined 3/25/2012

    Read Revelation, its in there, which is probably what Russell did, allthough Russell got a lot of things wrong, he also got a lot of things right, more so than most religions.

    Leolaia posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:07:52 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 17041 of 16234
    Joined 9/1/2002

    The book quotes from a Chicago University graduation speech by Hon. Chauncey M. Depew...

    "The farmers of Europe and America are justly complaining of their condition. The rural populations are rushing to the cities and infinitely increasing the difficulties of municipal government. Capitalists are striving to form combinations which shall float with the tide or stem it, and labor organizations, with limited success, are endeavoring to create a situation which they believe will be best for themselves. The tremendous progress of the last fifty years, the revolutions which have been worked by steam, electricity and invention, the correlation of forces working on one side of the globe and producing instantaneous effects on the other, have so changed the relations of peoples and industries that the world has not yet adjusted itself to them. The reliance of the present and future must be upon education, so that supreme intelligence may bring order out of the chaos produced by this nineteenth century earthquake of opportunities and powers" (pp. 445-445).

    Russell didn't write that.

    M slimboyfat posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:16:28 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 6680 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    Which book? Armageddon? The article doesn't give a page number.

    Leolaia posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:20:29 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 17042 of 16234
    Joined 9/1/2002

    Yeah I went through the book and found that quote which sounds a lot like globalization.

    M slimboyfat posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:25:14 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 6682 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    Well that was pretty quick. What about the claim he invented the term "corporate giants"? Are these people having a laugh?

    Leolaia posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:32:37 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 17044 of 16234
    Joined 9/1/2002

    Yes, Russell did use that expression.

    Controlling capital of hundreds of millions of dollars, these combinations or trusts are indeed giants; and if matters continue for a few years, as they have during the past twenty, they will soon control the world with the financial lever. Soon they will have the power, not only to dictate the prices of the goods consumed by the world, but, being the chief employers of labor, they will have the control of wages.

    True, these combinations of capital have in the past accomplished great enterprises which single individuals could not have accomplished so quickly or so well. Indeed, private corporative enterprise has taken and successfully carried risks which the public would have condemned and defeated if undertaken by the government. We are not to be understood as holding up vast accumulations of capital to wholesale condemnation; but we are pointing out that every year’s experience not only adds largely to their financial power, but also to their sagacity, and that we are rapidly nearing the point where the people’s interests and very liberties are threatened, if indeed we are not already there. Everybody says, Something must be done! but what to do nobody knows. The fact is, mankind is helplessly at the mercy of these giant outgrowths of the present selfish social system, and the only hope is in God.

    True, also, these giants are usually headed by men of ability who thus far generally seem disposed to use their power in moderation. Nevertheless, the power is being concentrated; and the ability, guided in the main by selfishness, will be likely from time to time to tighten the screws upon their servants and the public as opportunities permit and circumstances favor.

    These giants threaten the human family now as literal giants threatened it over four thousand years ago. Those giants were “men of renown”—men of wonderful ability and sagacity, above the fallen Adamic race; they were a hybrid race, the result of a new vitality united to the Adamic stock.* So with these modern corporate giants: they are great, powerful and cunning, to an extent which discourages the thought of their being conquered without divine interference. Their marvelous powers have never yet been fully called into service. These giants, too, are hybrid: they are begotten by a wisdom that owes its existence to Christian civilization and enlightenment acting in combination with the selfish hearts of fallen men. But man’s necessity and God’s opportunity are simultaneously drawing near; and as the giants of “the world that was before the flood” were swept away in the flood of waters, so these corporative giants are to be swept away in the coming flood of fire—the symbolic “fire of God’s jealousy” or indignation, already kindling; “a time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation.” In that “fire” will be consumed all the giants of vice and selfishness; they will fall, and will never rise again. Isa. 26:13,14; Zeph. 3:8,9 (pp. 368-370)

    M slimboyfat posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:37:30 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 6683 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    He used the expression but did he invent it?

    Is Russell in fact a great unsung scholar of globalisation?

    Aren't these weird comments to be inserted into articles on subjects unrelated to Russell or his followers?

    cofty posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:38:45 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 4684 of 13012
    Joined 12/19/2009

    I remember a lot of rants about "big business" in Russell's and Rutherford's writings.

    breakfast of champions posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:41:38 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 2488 of 3864
    Joined 5/30/2011

    Didn't Marshall McLuhan come up with the term "Global Village"?

    . . . or was that Russell too?

    Satanus posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:50:01 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 18878 of 21303
    Joined 8/31/2001

    You could say that rusell coined the term. However, inventing what it represents is entirely different. Anyhow, in the bigger picture globalisation is merely a continuation of the empire concept. Way back, the main tool in empire building was military conquest. The british, while using mainly military, later on used capitalism and industry.

    S

    Leolaia posted Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:51:24 GMT(10/12/2012)

    Post 17047 of 16234
    Joined 9/1/2002

    Russell did not use the term "globalization", the concept is kind of there, but he was dependent on the work of Depew, whom he was quoting.

    Russell used the term "corporate giants" (quite literally) but he was not the first to do so. A Google search shows scattered (maybe independent) use of the expression in the 1800s.

    " And of what else, Sir, should we, as Corporate Giants, be thinking? Punch. Tell of the statues so graceful, enwreath'd all in roses and myrtle. Magog. We knows no statue but one, and that 's Peace, cause her emblem 's a turtle" (Punch, 1851), "Q (2l50) It is very difficult for me to rationalize with the people I represent that they should be burdened on a day to day business with giving handouts to the corporate giants of this world without their having some say in the decisions being..." (Canada House of Commons, 1878), " William H. Vanderbilt parried the blows of corporate giants. Mephistopheles or Apollyon, I hardly know which, was his opposing champion. The role of the philanthropist was out of question" (The Current, 1885), " thus succeed among the corporate giants and monopolies whose products they have to obtain in exchange for their own" (Farming Corporations, 1892), etc.

    Russell wasn't the first.

    M slimboyfat posted Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:03:05 GMT(10/13/2012)

    Post 6685 of 8459
    Joined 11/24/2004

    Maybe the author of the globalization article is a Witness, Bible Student or ex-Witness and included the Russell reference for a laugh. Where else would any regular person get the idea to attribute the foundation of globalization theory to Charles Taze Russell of all people?

      Close

      Confirm ...