Emilia Akulenko’s Weblog

The globalization of economic flows may be the most manifest nowadays, and it is the first thing one thinks of when globalization itself is discussed. Limiting the once sovereign role of nation-state, expanding the market across the planet without a visible chance of anyone preventing it, amassing wealth in ever fewer countries is combined with the growing disproportion between the rich and the poor within these countries. What seemed probable over the few decades after World War II – the prominent role of the so-called nation state, care for the less able, less healthy and elderly population, free schooling and healthcare – seem to be vanishing into historic oblivion. The so-called welfare states owe most of their current problems to the structural change of the world’s economic system, which is, for some, a synonym for globalization. As we have already said, these changes greatly limit (even tend to fully abolish!) the force of action of nation-states so that, even if they want it, they are unable to provide their own citizens with what they have been used to for decade. Transnational capital does not have much mercy on social policy, equal care for all strata of population, especially those who are unable to generate profit. A newly imposed problem is the fear that even the wealthiest and the most stable societies will not be able to endure this race. If the market demands as advocated by the neo-liberal ideologists are accepted, the already attained wide scope of various social rights that their citizens are used to does not have much chance to survive. As it was compellingly demonstrated by Naomi Klein (author of the book “No Logo”) as well, all the trends of capital ‘movement’ to underdeveloped regions are present, but not out of concern for the welfare of local population as it is declaratively stated, but for their ruthless exploitation. But at the same time, such a manner of re-distributing production to the poor regions of the Third World will render millions of domestic workforce jobless, closing the circle of poverty. Regardless of the proclamations on the ‘visible progress’ of global economy. This leads to the fact that, despite the proclaimed efforts (and perhaps even a genuine wish) to put an end to ethnically-based conflicts by reducing the significance of local identities, the growing poverty among and within various societies seems to be encouraging animosities, conflicts, and, in the foreseeable future, even wars of the conflicting ethic, religious, racial or class groups. ‘The neo-liberal type of globalization is creating a new geography of social inclusion (apartheid). The worlds of wealth and extreme poverty are not divided by the Great Wall of China – a new poverty is spreading amid the society of affluence. The “black holes of globalization”, people and regions excluded from progress, can be found in all the cities of the “First World” – in American urban ghettoes, North African communities in France, Japanese Yoseba slums, Asian megalopolises. Trying to explain why capital is moving to underdeveloped regions, Thomas Friedman provides a very interesting answer. Claiming to have talked to several young Palestinians when he was at Ramallah at the West Coast in his twenties, he established that their desire for war, terrorist actions and suicide attacks results from lacking jobs, hope and dignity. At first sight, this explanation does not seem irrational. The listed reasons are surely a good reason for various sources of frustration. But what does Friedman propose for them? That moving ‘jobs’ from the West not only to India or Pakistan, but to Palestine as well would create not only a more prosperous world, but also a safer world for our own twenty-year-olds! This should be one of the crucial reasons in favor of globalization as envisaged by similar intellectuals. But what Friedman ‘forgets’ to state are the political causes of the dissatisfaction of the Palestinian or Iraqi people. Klein in her book does not hesitate to remind him: ’In other words, economic development will not come to Palestine via call centers but through liberation. Friedman’s argument is equally absurd when applied to the country where terrorism is rising most rapidly: Iraq. As in Palestine, Iraq is facing an unemployment crisis, one fueled by occupation. And no wonder: Paul Bremer’s first move as chief US envoy was to lay off 400,000 soldiers and other state workers. His second was to fling open Iraq’s borders to cheap imports, predictably putting hundreds of local companies out of business.’ Klein is even more lucid when finding an even more efficient way of fighting terrorism: ’ Friedman’s bright idea of fighting terrorism with outsourced American jobs is overly complicated. A better plan would be to end the occupation and stop sending American workers to steal Iraqi jobs.’ Today’s globalization brings about an inconceivably united world for rich individuals, for the elites, but also a growing division inside societies: the globalization’s winners and losers. Neo-liberals suggest that economic globalization is the only effective road leading to global poverty reduction, whereas, in practice, this looks completely different. The failure of certain countries to join the community of the so-called First World is explained by their failure to harmonize and integrate into the contemporary world economy fast enough