Running Head: POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

Post-Modern Globalization: a Critique of the Theory and Practice J. Malone Lincoln University, Jefferson City, MO.

2 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

Abstract This paper seeks to analyze and critique globalization as a political and economic phenomenon, both from a theoretical point of view and a practical point of view. The first step in the process of assessing globalization is the development of a working definition. Though Lemert, et al defy that a working definition has yet to be proposed that can stand up to the real workings of globalization as a concrete process, a definitive statement that encapsulates the main, general aspects of globalization is necessary in order to analyze and sum up the phenomenon in any meaningful way. Second, this paper assesses the overall relationship of globalization to world politics. Next, the paper assesses the driving force and impact of globalization on international affairs, with a particular focus on the efficacy of global governance. Finally, the paper seeks to grade globalization as world phenomenon.

3 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

Post-Modern Globalization: a Critique of the Theory and Practice Globalization, generally defined is a phenomenon that has been with humanity as far back as recorded history. Regardless of where they come from, most definitions agree that globalization is the process of disparate human societies expanding their reach, connecting with, influencing, and being influenced by each other. The debate on globalization, even this far down the line, still seeks to adequately define globalization. Obviously, a definitive statement that encapsulates the general nature of globalization is important, and this attempt to assess and analyze globalization is no different from others, in respect to definition.
According to Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi, of Uganda, globalization is defined as: a process of advancement and increase in interaction among the worlds countries and

peoples facilitated by progressive technological changes in locomotion communication, political and military power, knowledge and skills, as well as interfacing of cultural and value systems and practices. Globalization is not a value-free, innocent, self-determining process. It is an international socio-politico-economic and cultural permeation process facilitated by policies of governments, private corporations, international agencies and civil society organizations. It essentially seeks to enhance and deploy a countrys (societys or organizations) economic, political, technological, ideological and military power and influence for competitive domination in the world. Lemert, Elliot, Chaffe, and Hsu, in Globalization: a reader, make the point that there has yet to be a definition offered by globalization theorists which adequately expresses the general aspects of globalization in an effective way. However, Nsibambis two part definition does well to
set a basic foundation for an analysis of the process of globalization. First, Nsibambi gives a broad enough conception of globalization, stipulating that it is the ongoing engagement of world populations with each other, and that this engagement is deepened and extended via the development of all kinds of

4 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION social, political, and economic advances. The second portion of the definition builds on the objectiveness of the first part, by giving the process of globalization a pulse. Nsibambi makes clear that globalization is not some neutral phenomenon that just happens, but is consciously directly, if not controlled, by the varying forces which are involved in it. Lastly, Nsibambis definition makes clear that the overarching trajectory of globalization has been to continually develop a given countrys ability to participate in the struggle for global dominance. Therefore, in moving to assess the impacts and outcomes of globalization, the preceding definition and understanding of globalization serves as the touchstone and the compass used to analyze the phenomenon of globalization.

Before the current period of globalization, what can arguably be termed the postmodern era (from roughly 1970 until now), the relationship of globalization to world politics was that of object to subject. The state controlled the process of globalization and dictated how it happened in its immediate sphere of influence, concurrent with other states that shared geographical proximity or where connected in their social, political, and or economic interests. Globalization in the period prior to the post-modern era was largely aimed at closing physical ground between national territories and focused on wealth accumulation. The process was marked by ongoing, regular warfare and some form of annexation (colonialism, settler-colonialism, and metropolitanism). Beginning in ancient times, various social groupings that had formed themselves into proto-states and eventually nation states where concerned with consolidation and expansion, which in turn was motivated by the acquisition of resources and land. The Han Dynasty in China, the rise of the Roman empire in Europe, and the various empires which rose in Africa along the Nile and Niger rivers, and as far south as southern Africa with the rise of the Zulu empire, all demonstrate this process. These efforts can be seen as a kind of primitive or primary globalization setting up the foundations for what is now globalization in our times.

5 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

The ancient era of globalization gave way eventually to a period of globalization characterized by the increasing loss of unoccupied or unclaimed geographical space, the integration of less developed nations into the sphere of control of militarily developed nations, the pinnacle of which was the consolidation of the European world dominance and the rise of the U.S. as an infant empire. This period of globalization came to a close as the effects of the state in its pursuit of greater wealth and dominance transformed the worlds which exist on the globe. The rise of capitalism and its attendant imperialism restructured the states involved, and gave rise to capital as a force growing more independent of state power and becoming more influential in the expression of state power. From the beginning of serious European colonialism to the period just after the end of the second world war, culminating in the reorganization of European state powers and the emergence of the U.S. as the leading state power in the world, the constant was that capital continued to grow in its significance and impact on the way globalization functioned and intensified the modern-era objectives of globalization: the consolidation of wealth via projected state power, primarily in the form of military might. Subsequent to the redistribution of power which marked the beginning of the end of the modern era of globalization, there arose a series of crises which would catapult the state and international capital into a new stage of globalization: the revolt of the third-world, the fall of Russia, and the crises of the Asian markets, bringing the modern-era of globalization to an end about 1970. After the Second World War, the globalization which was characterized by direct colonial control of territory by Europe began to be challenged by African and Indian anticolonial resistance. Making the prospect of continued colonial control more costly than

6 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

profitable, the European colonialist transformed the form of political dominance into an economic control that operated as the true center of gravity in what were to become neo-colonial states. This marked a significant point in that political dominance as the vehicle for the ongoing globalization of European dominance was giving way to economic manipulation and control as the primary method, with politics taking a backset and supporting role. The next major point in the development of modern-era globalization was the cold-war and the fall of the Soviet Union. With a major contending force out of the race for dominance, the West was no longer in competition with any significant force outside the realm of Westernstyle democracy or capitalism. During this period, the repositioning of the U.S. as the leading force in global politics was completed and the restructuring of the world political economy was well underway and in fact nearly completed. This development was characterized by the rise of neoliberalism as the de jure policy of the West and its growing international institutions, such as the UN, IMF, World Bank Group, and similar institutions, towards developing and underdeveloped countries. A third crisis occurred which would finally consolidate the dominance of finance capital as a significant actor, which would transcend, in important ways, the state as the prime mover in globalization: the crises of the Asian markets. The first casualties of the new forms of finance instruments and strategies being employed in various investment markets, the Asian markets, and Russian markets in a similar way, imploded under the rubric of neoliberal political economy. The result of these changes and developments being that now the wealth and resources which once were fought over throughout the Old World had been secured and funneled into the coffers of first Europe, and then the U.S. Furthermore, the bourgeoisie revolution which

7 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

began in Europe now found its highest expression in the post-modern globalization as a leading force. The new or post-modern era of globalization is the point at which globalization as a means to extend and consolidate state power was transformed in a significant, almost revolutionary way. During this period, the enactment of policy by first the leading nation-states of the world, in the form of deregulation, liberalization, and privatization both domestically and internationally set up the foundation which capital would take on its current role as an equal, if not outright dominant, driving force in globalization. With the forces of private capital unleashed to function in a near laissez-faire environment, within the confines of non-industrial states, the economic drive of globalization begin to outstrip the political aspects of the state and began to become dictated more by the financial interests of capital than by the socio-political ends of the state. In short, over the course of the last century, the relationship of globalization to world politics has become that of a grown child to their aged parent: global economics, once the predicate of global politics, is now at least a countervailing, co-subject, if not the outright leading force with global politics becoming a close second. Prior to this advancement of economics as a significant motive force, what was happening on a world scale, during the expansion and consolidation of state power, was more or less what Dicken terms an internationalization processes [which] involves the simple extension of economic activities across national boundariesessentially, a quantitative process which [led] to a more extensive geographical pattern of economic activity. As the conquest of space and the consolidation of empire, which characterized the world processes prior to the post-modern period ceased to be internationalization, it entered the phase of globalization which was qualitatively

8 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

different from internationalization processinvolving not merely geographical extension of economic activity across national boundaries, but also and more importantly the functional integration of such internationally dispersed activities. The ability of the West to successfully tie the fortunes of any given nation-state to the fortunes of itself is the key thing which transformed internationalization, or primitive/primary globalization, into post-modern globalization. Some theorists, based on this successful integration of the various social, economic, and political process of the world, proclaim that the state has disappeared; that the rise of the multinational corporation and its seemingly overwhelming influence has signaled the end of the state. On the contrary, the state has not disappeared; it has merely recreated itself to meet the changing conditions brought on by the consolidation of finance capital as the driving force of globalization. This being the case, it is clear that the locus of globalizations motive force has been transferred from world politics to the world economy, and that the vehicle of world politics, namely the state, is no longer the bellwether of the globalization process. The context in which globalization occurs is a near complete integration of financial markets. The implication of this state of affairs means that, while states continue to exist and exercise power over the process of globalization, state power is severely moderated, if not entirely dictated, by the economics of international finance capitalism. The unification of economics in large areas of the world, such as the European Union, homogenize economic policies by making them increasingly dependent on the free movement of capital, goods, and services, which follow the rules of profit-making on a global scale [The] economies of all countries, including the USA have become largely dependent upon performance of their financial markets, which are globally integrated.

9 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

Along with the mainly financial aspects of the post-modern state of globalization, the role of politics, while changed, is still inherent, though reflective of the changed context. According to Carnoy and Castells the united Sates, and the G-7 group, developed institutional framework to impose the respect for strict market rules around the world: The International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization were strengthened in their role as watchdogs of the global economy. This new context, once established, began a cycle of establishment and expansion throughout countries that were not yet directly integrated into the new globalization. This occurred as a result of the above restructuring of globalization as a vehicle for the preeminence of finance capitalism, expressed as neo-liberalism. This neoliberalism was developed out of theory into practice and became what Thomas Friedman calls the Golden Straightjacket. Friedman, summing up the main planks of finance capitals neoliberal program for global consolidation included: making the private sector the primary engine of its economic growth, maintaining a low rate of inflation and price stability, shrinking the size of its bureaucracy, maintaining as close to a balanced budget as possible, if not a surplus, eliminating and lowering tariffs on imported goods, removing restrictions on foreign investment, getting rid of quotas and domestic monopolies, increasing exports, privatizing stateowned industries and utilities, deregulating capital markets, making its currency convertible, opening it industries, stock and bond markets to direct foreign ownership and investment, deregulating its economy to promote as much domestic competition as possible, eliminating government corruption, subsidies and kick backs as much as possible, opening its banking and telecommunications systems to private ownership and competition and allowing its citizens to choose from a array of competing pension options and foreign-run pension and mutual funds.

10 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

This new phase of globalization liquidated the old-school form of empire and effectively consolidated the new style of globalization, that is, the complete consolidation of the capitalist class as the main force in the global dominance of the world, a dominance symbolized drastically less by flags and increasingly more by currency. Therefore, the impact of globalization in the post-modern era on international affairs is economic, in the main. Even when the impact takes on the form of political thrusts, these thrusts, as is evident in the proscriptions of the Golden Straightjacket, are aimed at achieving a certain kind of economic state of being. Post-modern globalization has made international affairs a struggle for economic dominance, and is an echo of the imperial impulse a couple of millennia removed from its beginnings as a human phenomenon. Ultimately, the interplay between finance capital and politics finds itself in predictable contradictions, namely, the perceived need for some form or governance which is global in scale. Currently, there are a number of organization and bodies which function to provide governance on a global scale, the most easily recognized example of this is the United Nations. The United Nations is symbolic of the positive and negatives of the process of developing governance structures which are capable of providing the kind of oversight which is increasingly necessary. It also represents the transforming nature of the state, and the rise of the network state as a response to the established dominance of capital in the ongoing development of globalization. Ultimately, however, the attempts at global governance must be considered negative in the development of globalization as long as globalization is driven by finance capital and by network states whose interests our tied to finance capital. This is so because, for all of the advancements made in the globalization process, from the telecommunications revolution to the

11 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

green revolution, the fact is, globalization still stands on the pedestal of slavery which both Adam Smith and Karl Marx where able to recognize as the basis of capitalism. It is the masses of the peoples of the world, especially those of the so-called third world, which bear the brunt of the consequences of globalized finance capital. The U.N., and other forms of global governance forces, while having done much to mitigate these consequences, is in the final analysis, still primarily influenced and moved by the state apparatuses of the Western world. Seeing as these states are heavily slanted in favor of finance capital, this means, then, that the United Nations cannot be otherwise, and therefore ultimately serves the interests of finance capital itself. A clear example of this is the current conflict in Libya. A sovereign nation faced with insurrection, one that is likely to have been inspired if not supported by western state forces, is condemned and assaulted when it struggles to put down the insurrection. It so happens, that this state is a producer of oil and this oil production heavily affects the economies of Western Europe. Seeing no other connections, and completely disbelieving the position that this is a humanitarian effort, in light of the abundant cases of inhumane treatment of people by their governments in far more heinous ways, it can be fairly deduced that the motivation to assault and invade Libya was economic. The U.N. was manipulated, against the will of a significant sector of its members states, by the Western powers to condone the bombing and murder of the leadership and patriots of a sovereign state, under the auspices of humanitarian aid, but more likely for economic advantage. If the Gaddafi regime falls, and a new, more liberal, more Arab League friendly state emerges, who stands to benefit? The debate around globalization is a deep one. It is deeply varied and extensive. It covers seemingly every single aspect of human interaction and has begun to develop its own technical language, which if allowed to continue, will eventually be consolidated as something akin to a

12 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

hard science. Indicative of this process of academic crystallization is the development of three distinct schools of thought on the various aspects of globalization: the globalist, the antiglobalist, and the transformationalist. First, there is the pro- or hyper-globalist position which touts recent developments as proof positive that globalization is not only here, but that is has achieved a level of planetary integration of society which has completely negate the old ways of doing things. These theorists generally conclude that globalization is a good thing, and that it is not only the future, but also the right now. In his op-ed piece for the Council on Foreign Relations which appeared in USA Today, Max Boot proclaims on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. It has helped spread liberal institutions to countries as diverse as South Korea and Panama.given the historical baggage that imperialism carries, theres no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice. As it relates to the more social aspects of globalization, Ulf Hannerz, writing in the late nineteen-nineties identified what then could be called the end of the early stage of cultural globalization. He posits that there is now world cultureand organization of diversity, and increasing interconnectedness of varied local cultures, as well as a development of cultures without a clear anchorage in any one territory. In contradistinction to the pro- or hyper-globalist, there is the opposite pole: the antiglobalist. Generally taking the position that is skeptical of just about every assertion of the former school of thought. They question the existence of globalization as some new phenomenon, and posit that it is simply a case of new wine in old skin. In some cases, as in Hirst

13 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

and Thompsons dressing down of pro-globalists, the anti-globalist assert that the political impact of globalization [is] the pathology of overdiminshed expectationsoverstating the extent of the dominance of world markets and their ungovernability. Lastly, and very dialectically, there is a response to both the pro- and anti-globalist, which is the transformationalist position. According to Lemert, Elliot, Chaffe, and Hsu, the transformationalists take a sort of middle ground, shunning the mechanistic, metaphysical assessment of globalization as purely economic in character, as the anti-globalist camps does. They are more moderate than what Lemert, et al deemed to be the radical globalist on the question of the current stage of globalization being a new age and tend to take the position that it is more a gradual fine-tuning to the ever emerging changes brought on in post-modern globalization. The most accurate depiction of globalization cannot be truly said to be had by any one of the schools. On the one hand, the globalists tend to establish significant clarity of the benefits of globalization. These benefits, in certain ways, are objective and applicable to the whole of humanity. For instance, the development of high speed travel, high-speed communications, and the growing development of environmentally friendly methods of producing and fueling both transportation and communications. On the other hand, the anti-globalist keep the negative aspects of globalization front and center, and maintain a vigilance vis--vis the crushing effects of post-modern globalization on the workers and poor of the world. The transformationalist, generally tend towards the center. The world, and most things in it are polar objects, and globalization is not exempt. Globalization has its negatives and positives, and all of the schools of thought actually work together to form a dialectic that is necessary in truly apprehending the development of globalization in an all-sided way.

14 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

Globalizations Grade In the final analysis, there is nothing which can be said to be all negative or all positive, and so zero sum assessments of any given phenomenon are bound to run into serious complications as the phenomena continues to exist and advance. However, every phenomenon can be determined to be one or the other, in the main, subject to the application of that phenomenon to various subjects. Globalization is an objective phenomenon that exists independent of the subjective qualities of being capitalist. As stated before, it is a process that is seems to be genetically inherent, when taken in the broadest sense. This is evidenced in Prime Minister Nsibambi proposition in the first part of his definition. When globalization produces mutual benefit for those involved, when it is not antagonistic, it is generally a good thing for the development of human society. However when globalization takes on the subjective quality of being a facilitating process for coercive dominance, then it must be seen, in principle and in practice as a negative. Whenever globalization is used as a means to further the ends of dominance and the undermining of democracy, self-determination, and sovereignty, it is in principle a negative thing. The history of the U.S., alone, as a prime force in globalization, is demonstrative of the glaring contradictions in principle. On the one hand, the U.S. prides itself on its own quest for liberty for its citizens, and yet acquiesces, to put it lightly, to the drive of the Western world to maintain complete dominance of their people. Case in point, when Patrice Lumumba was elected Prime Minister of the Congo in the nineteen-seventies, it was less than a year before the United States, driven by its economic interests, sent both Louis Armstrong and the CIA into the

15 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION

Congo. The result of which was the kidnapping and murder of Lumumba and the subsequent destabilization of the Congo for decades to come. Globalization, when applied to the international owning class, and those forces that operate in alliance with the owning class, the bureaucratic/ruling classes in particular, is a positive thing. It allows their ability to continue reaping the best of the globalization process while minimizing their exposure to the negative aspects of the process. Some would say that these benefits, in turn, are passed down to the lower stratum of society. On the other hand, globalization, in general, is presently a bad thing for the working classes whom depend on the owning/ruling classes for the day-to-day living. This is so because it is the working classes whose exploitation provides the basic motive force in the production of capital. This classic exploitation is then compounded by deepening social, political, and economic inequality. In all arenas, the working classes are marginalized, except when it is capable of organizing itself into a movement on its on behalf (i.e., labor unions, civil rights, human rights, etc.). If the motive forces in globalization can be altered in such a way as to more evenly and equitably distribute the benefits that accrue from a world that is becoming more integrated, then it can become generally positive. Regardless, globalization is a real process and like poison, in the right dosage, it can be therapeutic and healing, or lethal.

16 POST-MODERN GLOBALIZATION References Boot, M.(2003) American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label, May 6, 2003, USA Today Carnoy, M., & Castells, M.(2003) globalization, the knowledge society, and the Network state: Poulantzas at the millennium, Ebsco Publishing, Dicken, P. (1992) Global Shift: the Internationalization of Economic Activity, 2nd edn, London: Paul Chapman, pp.5-6, 10-10. Friedman, T. (200) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, London: HarperCollins Publishers, pp.104-6 Hirst, P., Thompson, G. (1990) Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1-7 Lemert, C., Elliot, A., Chaffee, D., & Hsu, E. (2010), Globalization: a reader, Oxfordshire: Routledge, pp. 206 Nsibambi , A. (2001), The Effects of Globalization on the State in Africa: Harnessing the Benefits and Minimizing the Costs, United Nations General Assembly, Second Committee Panel Discussion on Globalization and the State