The End of Globalism

[IrateCitizen]

The following is a very long, but very interesting article on the end of the phenomenon known as "globalization". Although I question some of the author's conclusions, I think that a great deal of it is spot-on.

I'm also certain that our resident libertarian-types and dyed-in-wool free-traders will find plenty to take exception to, but the article does an excellent job of placing everything in an historical context.



The End of Globalism
Feb 20
John Ralston Saul

Grand economic theories rarely last more than a few decades. Some, if they are particularly in tune with technological or political events, may make it to half a century. Beyond that, little short of military force can keep them in place.

The wild open-market theory that died in 1929 had a run of just over 30 years. Communism, a complete melding of religious, economic and global theories, stretched to 70 years in Russia and 45 in central Europe, thanks precisely to the intensive use of military and police force. Keynesianism, if you add its flexible, muscular form during the Depression to its more rigid postwar version, lasted 45 years. Our own Globalisation, with its technocratic and technological determinism and market idolatry, had 30 years. And now it, too, is dead.

Of course, grand ideologies rarely disappear overnight. Fashions, whether in clothes or food or economics, tend to peter out. Thousands of people have done well out of their belief in Globalisation, and their professional survival is dependent on our continued shared devotion to the cause. So is their personal sense of self-worth. They will be in positions of power for a few more years, and so they will make their case for a little longer. But the signs of decline are clear, and since 1995 those signs have multiplied, building on one another, turning a confused situation into a collapse.

We have scarcely noticed this collapse, however, because Globalisation has been asserted by its believers to be inevitable - an all-powerful god; a holy trinity of burgeoning markets, unsleeping technology and borderless managers. Opposition or criticism has been treated as little more than romantic paganism. It was powerless before this surprisingly angry god, who would simply strike down with thunderbolts those who faltered and reward his heroes and champions with golden wreaths. If Globalisation has seemed so seductive to societies built upon Greek and Judeo-Christian mythologies, perhaps the reason is this bizarre confusing of salvation, fatalism and punishment. Transferred to economics, in however jumbled a manner, these belief systems are almost irresistible to us.

READ THE REST HERE: http://afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html

[reprehensor]

1. Thanks for posting that link.

This article is also the lead article in this month's Harper's magazine, which is well worth buying for other articles too.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Saul was on Lou Dobbs' show yesterday. It was an enlightening and

heartening segment.

[salib]

3. It is so wonderful

to have someone who has such confident, gentle, optimism on the TV for a change.

[Wonk]

9. mp3 & vp3 of that interview here

2 M mp3

24 M vp3

Additionally, notice my sigline if you haven't already.

[Ysabel]

4. big things fall...

fairly often - the more unstable - all the more often...

i think that competition in business is mean - nasty - dog eat dog - is unfriendly...

cooperative business is much nicer - much smoother - proven to work well - is friendly...

thanks for the article...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

6. I'll give you a good example of a model...

Do a little research on the difference between Wal-Mart/Sam's Club and Costco.

The National Green Pages also advertises a lot of businesses built upon less ruthless, exploitative models.

Also, remember -- cooperation does not mean an absence of markets nor competition. In fact, in some instances, it helps enhance them.

[sweetheart]

7. Wow, the article is long...

I don't dispute his findings, but find Chalmer's Johnson to be an
even more insightful critique in his book "sorrows of empire"

The chapter "Whatever happened to Globalization?" makes similar
points and does a better job, IMO, at debunking the neoliberal
economic imperialism, that has been replaced today by naked military
imperialism to the detriment of its more indirect cousin.

I think he fails to make this point, that it was never globalization
but american centric economic imperialism, veiled in universalist
terminology.

Its good to see more authors taking on this subject and honing the
argument against unfettered 19th century capitalism rebranded.

[IrateCitizen]

10. I agree with some of what you say, sweetheart

I'm only less than halfway through The Sorrows of Empire, but Johnson also hits many of these themes in Blowback -- especially the circumstances behind and fallout from the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

Kevin Phillips also made an interesting critique of "globalization" in his book Wealth and Democracy. What he said was, in effect, that "globalization" was little more than an extension of imperialism, and that it had actually been tried much more extensively under the British Empire of the late 19th century.

Where I think that this article makes some excellent points is by putting the whole concept in three contexts. First, it helps to take globalization out of its armor of "inevitability" by comparing it to the natural run of economic cycles. Second, it exposes the fact that it exists in the "perfect world" of theoretical models created by technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than being a system that looks at things from the standpoints of what really works best. Third, it shows that it isn't really a new idea -- but rather a rehash of old ones that failed before and resulted in large income gaps that helped to foment unrest.

I don't agree with all of his conclusions -- for instance, there is a line that should be drawn between nationalism and imperialism (although imperialism often flows out of nationalism). But it does raise some interesting points when taken in concert with other works, as you have pointed out.

[NuttyFluffers]

8. I enjoy John Ralston Saul

this article is very good and addresses what we need to hear at this time. there's enough scholarship mixed with approachable and highly entertaining analogies and commentary. he's great fun to read.

i strongly recommend Voltaire's Bastards, it was a very important book in my reading life. it helped blow away illusions while expanding my awareness of the broader context of what is going on in my modern world. it's an intense read, but thoroughly worth it.

[T_i_B]

11. Sorry I couldn't reply earlier IC

I'll reply to the article properly later but for now I'll post a bit of this article I've found in the UK Scotsman. Make of this what you will.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=359112004

The revival of reformist socialist parties is impacting on the far Left as well as the Right. The rise of a new, anti-globalisation Left was heralded in 1999 when tens of thousands of demonstrators rioted in Seattle during the World Trade Organisation conference. Such street politics had largely died out with the collapse of Communism, and the booming 1990s seemed to spell the end of anti-establishment youth politics. Seattle proved that phase was over. Essentially, two things had happened. First, the drift to the right of traditional social democrats - as exemplified by New Labour - had created a space for a left-wing alternative. Second, rapid globalisation had created its own economic and cultural stresses that called forth opposition from an eclectic bunch of single-issue campaigners for whom the mindless violence of Seattle became a rallying point.

This new Left spent the next few years upping the stakes in nihilistic confrontation until, predictably, a young anarchist demonstrator was shot by police in Genoa at the G8 summit in 2001. In the past 18 months, however, such anti-capitalist confrontations have virtually disappeared. Indeed, January’s World Economic Conference at Davos, normally a magnet for anti-globalisation rage, went entirely unmolested. Why?

First up, many anti-globalists took to heart the criticism that they were good at opposing things but useless at providing any alternative beyond a utopian peasant existence which nobody in the Third World actually wants. This led to a split in the movement between the mainstream and the loony anarchist faction around a series of global and European "social forums" - essentially big jamborees where anti-globalists get together (and normally fail) to hammer out an alternative to capitalism. In January, rather than trash the Davos meeting, they held a forum at Mumbai in India. This proved a trifle embarrassing as they discovered most folk in Mumbai thought globalisation was a good thing, as it brought call-centre jobs so you didn’t have to sleep in the street any more.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Curious excerpt, TiB...

Considering that the article itself really barely touches on the issue of "globalization" -- and that the part you excerpted touches only on one specific caveat that really affects only a miniscule segment of Indian workers when compared with the massive numbers still living in crushing poverty.

BTW -- those numbers are actually now GROWING with the imposition of agribusiness wishes on the Indian populace with the compliance of the BJP.

What the whole idea of "call centers are an example of the positive effects of globalization" fails to recognize is that economic growth has traditionally taken place by the ability of native entrepreneurs to grow and expand native business -- not by outside corporate interests coming in and throwing a few crumbs.

I've been reading some interesting views on this recently. Two that tie things together in new ways (for me, at least) are the books Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire, both by Chalmers Johnson. Although both primarily deal with the effects of US militarism in world and US domestic affairs, Johnson devotes a decent amount of space to economic matters as well. Perhaps most telling is his undeniable rejection of purely economic models of growth and globalization on the grounds that they do not account for the significant effects of foreign policy and militarism, and also that they deal in a purely theoretical world that gives the "out" of blaming their theories' failures on the fact that they were not carried out in a perfect environment.

[T_i_B]

13. Hmmmm....

The article does go beyond that one jibe as it makes an attempt to explain the fortunes of the anti-globalisation movement. However, if the anti-globalization movement has problems in this regard it is not just because there is the usual scant amount of unity usually found in the far-left but also because the left has become pre-occupied with the anti-war movement and because there is still no viable electoral alternative to the likes of Tony Blair.

That said, the pro-globalization crowd has been much quieter of late then the anti-crowd, Kucnich's presidential campaign seems to have made protectionism a lot more fashionable then it once was. I guess the pro-free trade sorts only ever get rolled out when a big summit is on and the anti-globalization campaigners look set to have a big knees-up.

Globalization is not dead, as your article claims though. The first bit I've seen in your article which I take exception to is this.

Perhaps the economists and other believers who launched Globalisation were instinctively concerned that people would notice their new theories were oddly similar to the trade theories of the mid-19th century or the unregulated market models that had been discredited in 1929. And so treating the intervening 40 years as an accidental interval, they began where their predecessors left off: with religious certainty.


Sorry IC but this is unmitigated bullshit. For a start it's a straw man argument making us all out to be mad idealogues (which we are not) and secondly, if free trade was discredited in 1929 when what the f**k happened in the 1930's when protectionism was rife? Protectionism deepened the great depression and ad a reactuion against it the IMF was created (thanks in no small part to Maynard Keynes) and the GATT was started after the war. We certainly have not been "treating the intervening 40 years as an accidental interval". The trend towards globalization has been with us since at least 1945.

Globalization did not appear as late as the 1970's but has been with us in some form or other since, well since the days of the Roman empire really. Contrary to Ralston Saul's straw man claims we globalists make no apoligies for being influenced by the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Ralston Saul does however confuse globalization with monetarism. The two are not the same. For a start one is a proccess, the other an economic ideology, and belief in free trade mdoes not nessessarily mean that you want to get rid of universal healthcare and the welfare state for instance.

This quarter-century rise of Globalisation peaked in 1995 when the old system of international trade agreements - known collectively as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - was reconceived as a new powerful body, the World Trade Organisation.

Again, not true, the global free market is expanding rapidly at present, thanks in no small part to the accession of China to the WTO and whilst the WTO has come under scrutiny it is not as yet on the wane. Indeed if we are to start trying to provide solutions to such problems as world agriculture then the WTO is the best place to start. The WTO may not be prefect, but it does have a future ahead of it. And I'm not talking about GM here either but about agricultutal subsidy programms such as the EU common agricultural policy which stifle western farms in beurocracy whilst condemming millions in the third world to penury.

And so the article goes on. I guess i'll have to come back to it, but I am far from impressed with Ralston Saul's article. It seems to contain more spin and false arguments then a Tony Blair speech.