By Md. Saidul Islam
07 June, 2007
is a process by which capital, goods, services, and sometimes labor
cross national borders and acquire a transnational character. It is
often accompanied by the flow of related taste, ideas, and even values
across boundaries, thus helping to reshape local political institutions,
social relationships, and cultural pattern.
As summarized in McMichael
(2004), both proponents and opponents of globalization can discern the
following characteristics: (a) a Washington-based consensus among global
managers/policy-makers favoring market based rather than state-managed
development strategies; (b) centralized management of global market
rules by the G-8 states (the USA, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy,
Russia, and Canada); (c) implementation of these rules through multilateral
agencies (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization);
(d) concentration of market power in the hands of Transnational Corporations
(TNCs) and financial power in the hands of Transnational Banks (TNBs);
(e) subjection of all states to economic disciplines (trade, financial,
labor), varying by position in the state system (North/South/East),
global currency hierarchy, debt load, resource endowments, and so forth;
(f) realization of global development via new gender, race, and ethnic
inequalities; (f) a counter-movements at all levels, from marginalized
communities to state managers to factions even within multilateral institutions,
contesting and second-guessing unbridled market rule.
While in one sense globalization
is not a new system as capital was global since the inception of capitalism
few centuries ago, we can find many novel trajectories of capital movement
in the today's world. One of them is the "electronic herd",
a concept used by Thomas L. Friedman in his classic book "The Lexus
and the Olive Tree". Friedman is one of the great proponents and
a high priest of globalization, and also quite paradoxically a hard-core
supporter of Iraq War. While the book is one of the most prominent ones
written to vehemently support and propagate the process of current globalization,
it does not escape itself from the contradictions and paradoxes inherent
in the process.
Globalization is, to Friedman,
a dream for sale: the middle class American lifestyle. The assumption
is that the whole world can buy and live with it. This dream can be
realized by sharing the global economic space dominated by the USA.
The dominant economic and political partner of globalization is the
USA, and one can reach there sooner or later. The logic he presented
is, the "electronic herd", the new electronic technology,
which is the "driving force" of interdependence.
While technology is an important
component of social change, it may not be the "driving force"
as propounded by Friedman. How to use technology and for what purpose
are not determined by technology itself, but by people who control it.
Whether nuclear technology would produce power (electricity) or warheads
( e.g., in World War II for domination and control) was decided by those
who controlled it. By attributing an agency for social change to technology,
Friedman attempted to shift the blames of global disharmonies created
by globalization from the actual perpetrators to technology itself.
Friedman continued, there
was interdependence in the old economy which was based on manufacture.
However, electronic technology in today's globalization is qualitatively
different from before, as it has "a major shift from manufacture
to services" across national boundaries. Therefore, "labor
mobility is no longer as important as it was in the past (as you can
get your services in Singapore, Bangalore…; slaves need not to
be brought from Africa). Capital can go where labor is."
This assertion of Friedman
also gives rise to a number of questions and paradoxes: First, while
sometimes capital moves to different places to exploit cheap labor,
evidences shows, however, that it dos not remain there for long time.
Secondly, contrary to what Freedman said, labor movement is in fact
more important, and therefore creates more concern, than any time before.
It is one of most important issues in the NAFTA, and the European Union
to guard Mexican labors. The USA calls them "illegal aliens".
However, not a single company in the USA can run without these "illegal
aliens". Paradoxically, today's borders are tighter than before
to guard labor migration. Guest workers, sex trade etc. are now crucial
and critical issues in the age of globalization. Finally, we can only
find the qualitative difference between old economy and current globalization;
however, relations of production, exploitation, and maximization of
profit before people remain the same. Globalization is nothing but an
"old wine in a new bottle" as McMichael (2004) coined.
Friedman argues that a country's
resource is no longer tied down to natural resources so long as there
are resources in the minds of its people (i.e., human capital). And
therefore, mental resources (ideas), (and not the natural resources),
are most important today for development. Again, this kind of argument
seems quite persuasive, however occludes other side of reality. First,
mental resources (ideas) are important today, but material resources,
Iraq's oil for instance, are more important than anything. Secondly,
countries such as Iraq or South Africa, which have important natural
resources, have paid, and still paying, the highest price in the era
of globalization. There is a direct connection between the availability
of natural resources and sources of prosperity and misery. If natural
resources are not important today, so many Iraqi lives would not have
been disappeared. Finally, Friedman seems to say, "Hey, you do
not need to think of your natural resources if they are exploited by
corporations. As long as you have mental resource, it's enough!"
Friedman further added, this
mental resource can be obtained by anyone from any country due to the
blessings of globalization. Therefore, no country has to remain poor.
In other words, "poverty is a matter of choice." However,
evidence and analysis shows that poverty is not a matter of choice.
People working in the sweatshops and earning less than a dollar per
day, and remaining in poverty is not a matter of choice. The social
structure or the relation of production is the most important thing
while addressing poverty. Friedman's logic blames the victim—the
poor, and sanctifies the oppressors and system that perpetuate a vicious
circle of poverty.
This new technology, as Friedman
thinks, has increased the power of the investors. Capitalists today
are more integrated. Electronic herds (people who control technology)
can exercise more influence on countries' economic and social sectors.
They are the driving force on 21 st century and it marks a new phase
of international relations (different from cold war): not international
rivalry but global integration. "International relation is no longer
marked by cold war, but by integration, not by military technology,
but by economic technology."
Again, Friedman's declarations
are fraught with numerous contradictions: First, Cold War was actually
a hot war. Both superpowers developed weapons which can destroy the
world in few seconds. Instead of removing poverty, they both made bunkers
and deadly weapons. One side thinks, human dignity comes from private
property and free market, while other side thought private property
destroys human dignity. In the current era of globalization, Cold War
is replaced by a new war for global dominance. Second, Friedman was
wrong when he said that current international relation is based not
on international rivalry but on global integration. Historical evidence
shows that worst forms of dictators have been installed and supported
by global managers which create more tensions in their regions. Third,
"The new world is characterized by electronic technology, not by
military technology!" Absolutely wrong assertion. Most sophisticated
electronic technology today is military technology. "Military industrial
complex" is the most dominant feature in today's society. Often
military and economy are fused into one, as they go hand in hand. Capitalism,
colonialism, and military conquest all go together. Preparing for war
while competing for free market is the history of capitalism and modern
globalization. Even after Cold War, capitalism is not peaceful, as Freedman
thinks. War is an active part of globalization for the capitalists to
maintain their domination. Afghan war, Iraq War, Lebanon war--all are
happening in Friedman's "peaceful world".
Friedman in his book argued
that the new phase of globalization is "free market". There
is no alternative to free market economy today. If you follow it, you
will get "Lexus", but if you don't, you will be crashed, and
hang on the "Olive tree". Electronic technology is not without
flaws. But it can correct itself. Herd can not be stupid for long time,
"Free market" is
a deceptive connotation as all countries do not have free access to
market, while capital seeks free access to exploit labor. Therefore,
"free market" wants abolition of governments' intervention
and control. In current globalization, free market is only for powerful
corporations and powerful countries. Some critiques argue that the world
has never been, and will never be, a free market. They think, there
is always a viable opposition to free market. If free market is to operate
freely, it will destroy humanity. Following Friedman's argument, we
can say that the herd can correct itself; however, the price for correction
is very high. More than 20 million died alone in World War II. Finally,
there are always tensions between different corporations, as they compete
with each other. Tensions in capitalism can never be resolved, as critics
Because of globalization,
Freedman agues elsewhere, the "wretched of the earth" can
to go the Disney land. What he means is that the poor and destitute
people of the earth can become like Americans, and get a Lexus, as globalization
creates greater economic opportunities, tolerance and individual autonomy.
Evidence shows that Friedman's
propagation is nothing but a "mere dream" and a form of deception,
as even in the USA the middle class is gradually shrinking. On the other
hand, the middle class/Disney land is now moving to the wretched of
the earth. From priests to prostitutes all are selling their labors
in capitalism as long as their labor is valued in the market. The capitalists
will move to any place where labor is poor and cheap. Jobs are now leaving
the USA as companies are moving to countries like India, and China.
Despite having enormous wealth, the USA enacted legislation in December
6, 2005 that put 200,000 poor Americans in dire hunger as $140 of food
subsidy was eliminated. It also slashed medical and childcare coverage.
Statistics shows, poor people in the USA increased by 37 million in
2005. More than 600,000 children cannot have enough food in the USA.
More than 7 million more poor people added in 2006.
Therefore, Friedman's assertions
are one-sided, ideological, and biased. The assertions reveal one side
of the reality to mask and occlude another side of globalization, which
is fraught with exploitation, inequality, mass poverty, hunger, blood
Md. Saidul Islam
is a PhD candidate in Sociology at York University, Canada. He can be
reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Share Your Insights
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.