United Discontent

Six Core Claims of Globalization by Manfred Steger

number 6

A documentation of what globalists will and have been saying, this is a statement from  a Global Forum Fortune 500  by George David “We are at an optimistic time in our world: the barriers between nations are down, economic liberalism is decidedly afoot and proven to be sound, trade and investment are soaring, income disparities between nations are narrowing, and wealth generation globally is at record high levels, and I believe likely” – Why Critics of Globalization are Wrong by George David

The Rhetoric of Globalization made by pro-globalizers is as followers:

1. Globalization Is About the Liberalization and Global Integration of Markets (not an ideology)

“in other words the concrete outcomes of market interactions are neither intended nor forseen, but are the result of the workings of what Adam Smith famously called the ‘invisible happen'” yet Globalists usuaully convey the assertion that globalization is integration of markets in the form of moral imperatives “The concept of ‘free trade’ arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics”- George Bush

2. Globalization is Inveitable and Irrerversible

Despite the presupposition that the market is based on independent inter-subjective decisions of independent and individual rational actors within a liberally organized democratic society, it is still spoken of within a marxist hegelian determinism.  By seeing globalization as the natural historical local of the universes organization principles, it is passively accepted yet actively pursued!  President Clinton on US Foreign Policy “Today we must embrace the inexorable logic of globalization– that everything from the strength of our economy to the safety of our cities, to the health of our people, depends on events not only within our borders, but half way a world away”

3. Nobody is inCharge of Globalization

“The great beauty of globalization is that no one is in control.  The great beauty of globalization is that it is not controlled by any individual, any government, any institution” – Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman sachs

The meetings, the groups, the foundations, that all work on spreading neoliberal principles and new world order principles have been deeply rooted in ancient history.

4. Globalization Benefits Everyone

g-7 summit of 1996, speaking in a jacobin spirit

“Economic growth and progress in today’s interdependent world is bound up with the process of globalization.  Globalization provides great opportunities for the future, not only for our countries, but for all others too.   Its many positive aspects include an unprecedented expansion of investment and trade; the opening up to international trade of the world’s most populous regions and opportunities for more developing countries to improve their standards of living; the increasingly rapid dissemination of information,technological innovation, and the proliferation of skilled jobs.  These chracteristics of globalization have lead to a considerable expansion of wealth and prosperity in the world.  Hence we are convinced that the process of globalization is a source of hope for the future”

5. Globalization Furthers the Spread of Democracy in The World

The globalist claim is anchored in the neoliberal assertion that freedom, free markets, free trade and democracy are synonmous terms.  This focus on the act of voting– in which equality prevails only in the formal sense– helps to obscure the conditions of inequality reflected in existing asymmetrical power relations in society.

6. Globalization Requires War on Terror

Daniel Griswold, Associate Director of the Cato Institute (A Major DC5 Think Tank) “An essential part of any plan to establish freedom in Iraq should be a commitment to a free market and the instutions that support it, including a commitment to free trade… The technology dynamism, and openness for our own market helped us win this war; if spread to Iraq, could help us win the peace”

Robert Kaplan reminds his readers “The purpose of US power is not power itself; it is the fundamentally liberal purpose of sustaining the key characteristics of an orderly world.  Those characteristics include basic political stability; the idea of liberty, pragmaticaly conceived; respect for property; economic freedom; and representative government.  At this moment in time it is American power, and American Power only, that can serve as an organizing principle for the worldwide expansion of a liberal civil society” – The Hard Edge of American Values


Globalization as ideology, Neoliberal effects as fact

\

It’s one thing to believe in Globalization, as in you believe it is a fact of reality that the market of social relations will inevitably lead to human progress, specification of tasks, the free market, survival of the fittest, and ultimately most beneficial for the entire world and you agree to books like “The World is Flat“.

It’s another thing to believe that you exist in a world full of people who believe in Globalism, and that the “action’ of “globalisizing” is having its effects, and people are starting to act think and do more along these lines, that things contingently could be another way even if they progress towards one world market as we speak, that history operates in cycles of power, and that CURRENTLY globalization is a phenemological reality because its an ideological domination, and not vice versa.

I believe I am existing in a world where the multi-national financial global movement is taking off, that previously it was  pushed through the 1960s-1980’s through war, 1990’s softly through affleuncy and capitalism, 2001 + militaristically under the guise of pre-emption, and the fall of the housing market (the other reason for banks).  I believe I cannot conceptually wrap its effects, as each country is in each of its own phases of accepting/rejecting the neoliberal global package and one can hardly surmise how every country in every instance relates to this global normativity.

Imagine the battle of Thermopylae would of been lost, crushing athenian democracy all over the world.  Now, imagine existing in a world dominated by Persia, Would it be insane to imagine what Atheninan Democracy would look like?    If you were an archaeologist would it worthwhile to look at the ruins of the athenian and roman empires like we do now with the incas, aztecs, and mayans, hoping to find a clue to their organizational structure looking for meaning and purpose? Would it be worthwhile to consider what an athenian democracy might look  like “nowadays” even though, living in a persian world, we’d know not to attempt such a “barbarian method of governance”

The answer to these rhetorical questions is simple, and these questions end up looking rediculous… we emphatetically ought to yell “of course”.  We imagine in a hitler run world that naturally, people would investigate capitalism and socialism and all of these other things,

The Hegenomical idea would be globalization, but the fact (like the hitlerian fact) would be neoliberal domination.  We currently live in a world completely dominated by neoliberal economics  and this as seen as a “univerisalization”

 “”What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

So one can BELIEVE in this reality, but one may strive to choose to live and to create a new world beyond the scope of neoliberalism.  The first step is seeing that this movement toward globailzation is not a “universal feature of human reasoning” that anyone or any culture would eventually grow to determine as the best practices, with enough time, but  a set and style and method of running things that has and does tend to particularly benefit some people over others.  Recognizing economic contingency is key, especially in recognizing how often we’ve transfered the value of things in the past.


Globalism and American Empire, its roots up till 2001

“Both ’empire’ and ‘imperialism’ derive from ‘imperium’ a latin noun reffering to ‘power’ and ‘command’.  After the long reign of Caesar August that marked the final demise of the Roman Republic in the early first century CE, imperium signified the Emperor’s ‘legal power to enforce the law’ a function he would routinely delegate to his chief military leaders and civil magistrates.  Operating within a Hellenic cultural framework, the Roman inherited the Stoic conception that an empire was universal, in the sense of partaking of universal reason, and, therefore, valid for all societies.  Hence, the concept of imperium implied a universal humanitarian mission of “Spreading civilization” to the rest of the World.  Romans were convinced that only the complete conquest and civilization of all “barbarians” residing beyond the borders of the empire would ultimately lead to a harmonious union of the world’s peoples under Roman leadership, thus establishing peace, order, and justice on earth.”

“With the modern spread of liberal capitalist democracy and its professed ideals of freedom, equality, and national self-determination, ’empire’ aquired the rather undesirable connotation of political oppression and coercion–a charge most vehemently rejected by those powers that seem to deserve it the most.  With the end of the colonial era after World War II, the world’s powers claimed to seek benign influence rather than domination.  American and Soviet leaders eagler attempted to substantiate their assertion that their respective nations were not involved in an “imperialist” enterprise by pointing to the lack of what had always been seen as the hallmark of empire: direct or indirect political rule over formally annexed or incorporate external terrorities”

– Manfred Steger