> >Today, the globalization of capital is creating an international
> >working class-albeit, one that is stratified in complex ways and is
> >characterized by both an active and a reserve army of labor. The
> >development of an international middle-strata for example, has
> >helped to make capital more mobile. The lifestyle of this element is
> >observable in almost every city in the world-wearing, drinking, and
> >driving the same brands as they watch the same movies and listen to
> >the same music.
>
> I see this claim a lot, but is it really true? Florence looked very
> different to me from New York; New York looks very different from
> Gloucester, Mass.; Manhattan looks very different from Brooklyn.
> Visiting Sydney in 2001, we heard some Asian-flavored techno like
> I've never heard in the northern hemisphere. Are things really
> homogenizing to this degree?
No. But I think I understand the point he's making. If you were dropped into the downtown shopping district of a lot of major cities throughout the world (well, at least throughout North America and Europe, anyway) you wouldn't be able to identify your location just by looking at the names of the businesses on the street. And of course there are big-name musicians and actors whose names would be known in all these cities.
But there are still plenty of smaller cities, particularly in the less advanced countries, which don't have what are known here as 'High Street' shops. And every country still has its own pop stars who are unknown abroad. If you're interested, you can take a look at the current Irish Top 40 album chart here - http://www.rte.ie/2fm/charts/albums.html - many of those names would be familiar to pop music fans worldwide, but certainly some of them wouldn't. Countries whose primary language isn't English must have an even higher proportion of non-exportable culture.