CHAPTER II
OLD AND NEW
GLOBALIZATION
PABLO LÓPEZ LÓPEZ
WORDS, PREJUDICES AND COMPLEXITIES
A Hypnotic Word
People are not pure intellects, not even scholars. We have various
feelings, interests and experiences which condition our grasp of ideas. Every
word may mean much more than might be supposed from definitions given in either
dictionaries or academic papers. This is particularly important to remember when
confronted with a word like "globalization." The word
"globalization" itself, apart from its eventual corresponding reality,
has become a social phenomenon. The ideas normally related to the term were
already well-known realities before the term "globalization" became a
sociological factor with its own life in the mass-media and every manner of
scholarly circle. It is a key term indicating that one is acquainted with
current world news as well as prepared for the future. Scholars from a broad
range of scientific, technological and professional backgrounds produce very
many papers and books about the term. It possesses a hypnotizing power, for not
only is it politically-correct, but it has also become an unavoidable expression
for any social, political, economic and ethical explanation of the present day.
Such frequent usage of the term does not imply a common and clear notion
of "globalization," nor of the generally accepted appraisal of reality
that it presumes. The continuous usage of the word constitutes a further
difficulty for its understanding, as it becomes a buzzword that tends to use its
rationalized meaning. The greatest hindrance to its understanding is its
assumption as an all-embracing term that can explain all possible facts; such is
the hypnotic effect of "globalization." In this regard, the least
reliable are those who take for granted that there is only one meaning for the
term. They usually use it in the most optimistic sense because of ideological
interests or naivete, and try to explain and justify by it every social,
political and economic fact. In this case they hardly explain anything well and
consequently create marked confusion.
We must be careful when analyzing the meaning of the term lest we, too,
accept a prejudicial meaning or too sharp a simplification of
"globalization." In doing this analysis we need a proper understanding
of the conceptual issue surrounding globalization. Its popularity surpasses that
of other currently fashionable terms like "end of history," "new
age," "global village" or "postmodernism," all of which
appear to be allies of "globalization" in the configuration of a
"new world." Besides, the term is being used to come to the rescue of
some old terms like "free market," "liberalization" or
"progress." "Globalization" is the melting pot of a number
of terms that might in the end be more significant, which hide behind the facade
of this term for their own marketing purposes.
Pride and Prejudice
The word "globalization" has been successfully introduced in
the market of ideas. A part of its success lies in its ambiguity, which lets
people easily accommodate the term to their own viewpoint. Hence the ideas that
different people have of the term are quite different, especially as regards its
valuation. Such diverse conceptions are based on prejudice and on a certain
proud unwillingness to change our outlook. Our previous judgments, "pre-judices,"
and pride are shaped by our ideology, interests and moral values. It is not my
aim here to give long list of ideologies, interests and moral values. Let us
consider instead some of the most representative social systems in order to
understand the influence of preconceptions in our comprehension and appraisal of
globalization.
We can start with a sort of official definition of
"globalization," given by the International Monetary Fund: "the
economic interdependence of all countries in the world, caused by the increase
of the volume and the variety of the international transactions of goods and
services, as well as of the international flows of capital, and by the
accelerated and generalized diffusion of technology."1 This
definition can be regarded as official not only because it comes from a powerful
international organization, but also, and primarily, because it expresses the
capitalist viewpoint. In fact, "globalization" is not a global
initiative or a kind of spontaneous convergence of the whole world, but a
capitalist term for a capitalist reality. From this basic perspective,
globalization is not global at all. It is true that almost everyone in the world
is involved, but the vast majority is involved only in a passive way.
As is stated in the definition, in the capitalist view,
"globalization" is mainly a matter of trade and technology. The quick
advance of technology since the Industrial Revolution meant that capitalism and
industrial or technical advances amount to one and the same thing. Capitalist
investments and capitalist countries have led successive waves of technological
revolutions. Probably the main technological sectors are communication and
transport precisely the key areas in which the current globalization of markets
is taking place. Thus, globalization is not a cause, but rather a consequence of
technological development. In other words, we see how technology has been at the
service of a form of capitalism which is vaguely termed
"globalization." And this capitalist technology, like its Communist
counterpart, has had principally a military aim. Much major technology is an
adaptation of military machinery, as in the case of the Internet or the tractor.
In any event, technology, including its armed branch, is subject to trade, that
is, to money, especially today, when finance and speculation make up the main
element of trade. Therefore, from the capitalist outlook, money is the central
notion of globalization. Any other conclusion, indeed, would be surprising, for
capitalism is centered on capital, on money.
More pride and prejudice come from another ideological family: the
socialist and communist spheres. Capitalism chooses a material goal, by
promising at the same time social justice as an automatic consequence of its
market-mechanism, the "invisible hand." Marxism, on the other hand, as
the most widespread and influential form of contemporary socialism, heads
initially for social justice, while assuming an almighty state. As capitalist
globalization is centered on money, Marxist internationalism is centered on
statism. They follow quite inverse strategies: whereas capitalism aims at
material richness, expecting to achieve human spiritual values indirectly on the
way; Marxism's aim is the achievement of human spiritual values while expecting
to achieve them through materialistic means and a materialistic "cosmo-vision".
Both strategies have proven unrealistic and even contrary to their respective
targets. If we really want to achieve an appreciation of authentic human values,
we should use humanistic means and from start to finish aim to achieve those
values. In the end, even Marxism is a sort of capitalism: state capitalism. In
practice both are materialistic and mechanistic systems. Marxism trusts the
mechanism of the state as capitalism, the mechanism of the market. However,
neither the overpowering "popular" state nor the unlimited
"free" market produces the justice which both models propose.
Of course, there also exist interesting mixes of socialism and
capitalism, often operating in combination with democratic parliamentary
systems. Social-democracy and Keynesian capitalism are cases in point. After the
fall of the Berlin Wall, these models, as representatives of the welfare state,
became the main enemies of the supporters of the currently overbearing
"globalization." What should be clear is that capitalist
"globalization" cannot be "sold" as another form of
temperate capitalism, for example as a "responsible capitalism," in
the words of G.B. Madison (Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities, 1998),
or as a "responsible globality," the motto of the 1999 World Economic
Forum in Davos. Instead globalization is a revival of the most strict capitalist
postulates in a much more internationalized and massive dimension. From this
standpoint, "globalization" does not represent so much a postmodern
era, but goes back to premodern times or to early modernity. Nevertheless, the
postmodern disenchantment and lack of social militancy in rich countries
provides an outstanding ally of globalization.
A third preconception, communitarian personalism, is not based on a
material and impersonal good, like money or the state, but on the person himself
and his own social constitution and vocation. The dignity of the person rests in
his pride. A long time before the present controversy among Anglo-Saxon
scholars, between the communitarians and the individualists, personalist
thinkers like E. Mounier, J. Maritain and M. Buber avoided both unilateral poles
and reconciled individual and social aspects of the person in an active, deep
and revolutionary perspective. Unlike capitalism and Marxism, personalism can be
regarded as never having been put into practice. There has never been anything
like a personalist state or economic system. In spite of this, there have been
and still are multiple personalist elements and experiences in many countries,
even within capitalist and Marxist systems. This is the case in the social
economy and workers' self-management. Communitarian personalism is not so
simplistic and mechanic as capitalism and Marxism. Hence, it cannot be carried
out swiftly on a large scale as the direct result of concrete legislation.
Personalism comes from below, not from a state elite or a managerial class.
One-sided Thinking and the Complexities of Reality
There is a dogmatic fatalism supporting capitalist globalization which
asserts that "there is no alternative." This is the "pensamiento
único," or "one-sided thinking" denounced by Mediterranean
thinkers, expressed by TINA as its coined acronym. We have already warned of the
widespread tendency to consider "globalization" in one exclusive
connotation. Many who share this tendency are political and economic leaders
with a supporting chorus of scholars.
Although the description of this thinking can be more subtly or
diplomatically expressed, TINA consists basically of:
(1) the triumph of a sort of alleged "free" worldwide market
dominated by large corporations;
(2) the consequent strong reduction of the state to a police function;
(3) the ensuing fragmentation of political entities and the emergence of
a new regionalism and localism;
(4) the prevalence of a virtual and speculative economy over productive
and real economy;
(5) transnational capitalism as the regulative framework of any
legitimate democracy;
(6) the submission of social values and education to the demands of a
planet-wide competition determined by technology and commercial strategies;
(7) the dissolution of any traditional moral and religious conviction
under the arbitrary and light style of the "new age" and
"postmodernism;"
(8) the consumerist uniformity or the "McDonalization" of
customs and lifestyles.
"Deregulation," "privatization,"
"competition," "efficiency," "liberalization" or
"flexibility," which seemingly justify every economic and political
decision,2 have become popular mantras among reform-minded officials
and professional politicians. Other questions are the degree of novelty and the
consequences, negative or positive, of such features, that is, the challenges,
risks and opportunities involved.
A real globalization ought not to be interpreted merely under such a
one-sided mentality for even in this quite lineal way of thinking complexity
arises. First, complexity comes up as interdisciplinarity. Economy is much more
than the economy, especially in terms of a macroeconomic system. Supporters of
globalization hasten to emphasize the cultural, ethical and political aspects of
globalization.3 They are right; it could not be otherwise.
Consequently, a series of different disciplines is necessary to obtain a
complete picture of globalization: we should at least consider the phenomenon in
terms of anthropology, history, ethics, politics, economy, sociology,
psychology, theology, pedagogy and communications sciences, etc.
Theoretical as it is, globalization entails in practice a wide problem of
governance. J.-F. Rischard, the World Bank's Vice-President for Europe, presents
as necessary a "more profound rethinking of planetary governance in the
light of the two big forces at the heart of this increasing complexity."
The two forces are the demographic growth, provoking environmental and social
stresses, and "the radically different world economy," in terms of
technological and commercial globalization.4 Rischard would do well
to check more accurate demographic information in order to banish his
demographic dread. But he takes the right view in assuming an active role for
politics in the control of economic globalization. Globalization is also
political and is to be governed through the collaboration of "public,
private and civil society players."
Nonetheless, the axis of present globalization still rests on economy,
particularly on money. But this expresses a situation of the heart. Money itself
is always unimportant. What is meaningful is how money or any other entity is
embraced interiorly. The pillars of globalization are, in a broad sense,
culture, economy and religion. This is a deeper complexity. Respectively they
embody our intelligence, our body and our heart. The three overlap one with
another. In a way, on the grounds of a biological constitution every humanly
developed action is cultural, a fruit of human intelligence. Likewise everything
depends on the economy, on the administration of the tangible goods that our
body needs. Most discreetly the bottom of our heart lives on the presence of an
absolute. The lack of a true relationship with the real absolute brings about
all kinds of idolatry. Idols do not exist outside of ourselves, but in our
hearts. We have noticed the hypnotic power surrounding the notion of
globalization. Indeed, globalization encompasses, for many, the idol of their
ideology.
Globalization is not merely ideological but is a huge, complex reality
with profound historical roots. Its current facet is ideological and partisan,
though pretending to be purely objective and scientific. The economist J. F.
Martín Seco explains the ideological source of the phenomenon: globalization
occurs solely in those areas intended by the economic power. Thus, while
international liberalization is total in financial flows, it is very restricted
for workers.5 As to the idolatrous connotations, globalization bears
a falsifying resemblance to the universalism of the great monotheisms. J. García
Roca analyzes how globalization does not keep its promises and constitutes the
most powerful idol of our time. In fact, globalization fails to expand
development to impoverished countries, creates an enormous mass of redundant
workers, imposes superhuman sacrifices on the poor and increases the possibility
of killing people off through starvation.6
COSMOLOGICAL, ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BASES
By now, we have overcome the over-simplied conception of globalization.
Yet, we need to deepen our awareness of the human context surrounding this
recent phenomenon. Globalization is to be understood globally.
By introducing the general preconceptions as underlying beliefs, we can
improve our awareness of our peculiar understanding of current globalization.
This particular period, significant though it may be, is just another stage of a
wider cosmological, anthropological and historical process. It is necessary to
be wary and not to deny that there are here some quite clear trends.
Cosmological Unity
Concerning the cosmic evolution we can endorse the intuition of scholars
like Teilhard de Chardin, (The Phenomenon of Man). The concept has its
roots in the most genuine origins of philosophy, as made clear by the
pre-Socratics. The world strives to attain its unity. It has an arche, or
natural ruling principle. What kind of arche would be consistent with a
true global unity? According to Teilhard, "Unity enlarges itself only
through a growth of consciousness, and therefore the history of the living world
consists in the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes."7 The arche
is consciousness; in Greek terms, "nous" or "logos."
We are entitled to contemplate our contemporary globalization as a part of the
universal march towards unity. The question now is to what extent our
globalization constitutes a special stage because of its distinctive degree of
consciousness.
On the one hand, there has never been so much talk about something like
this. Today we have technical means available to multiply the spread of any
fashionable idea. On the other hand, however, such frequency of the topic and of
certain words like "globalization" does not secure the depth and
intensity of a worldwide global consciousness. The extraordinarily large gap
between the few rich and the many poor is increasing. The gap has never been so
scandalous, and it is due to our historical production surplus. Production has
been globalized by means of the international division of labor, but
distribution of benefits has not been globalized. As things stand, a common
planet-consciousness is impossible. A consumerist mentality takes no account of
the reality of a life of abject poverty.
Anthropological and Historical Universalism
The one promising aspect of this chaos is its being considered unnatural.
It seems as though the Tellurian forces of humanity demand an effective, close
union of humanity. This is a joint teaching of anthropology and history. People
from very different cultures are meeting and living together on a scale never
seen in the 20th century. Cultures are discovering not only their particular
identities, but also their own universal values by meeting face to face with
other cultures. This happens superficially on the basis of today's phase of
globalization: new international markets, new massive emigrations, new
planet-wide media. It is a matter of degree and acceleration. But on a deeper
level the global meeting of the human race rests on a common human nature,
although many cultural anthropologists are still reluctant to use that term.
We need to review at least some of the great milestones of the historical
process of globalization, unless we want to fall into a narrow view of the
contemporary situation. A proper historical outlook is essential to distinguish
what is really new or old in globalization.
The Neolithic Revolution brought agricultural and sedentary cultures
together. At that time important groups of human beings were passing from the
state of tribe to the state of firmly constituted peoples: that is, from
primitive cultures to the first civilizations, including the acquisition of some
permanent values for humanity and a rich exchange with other peoples. This is
seen, for example, in ancient Babylon and Egypt.
The Greek contribution can be summarized in the dense term "logos."
Theirs is the definitive maturation of a wide and deep rationality embracing
philosophy, politics, sciences, art and a natural theology. Reason is universal
itself. Reason belongs to all humankind and is the common ground for a mutual
understanding. Reason is also universal in virtue of its openness to all
subjects, to all dimensions of reality, even to that which exceeds the natural
power of our mind. Though there had been earlier empires, like the Persian, it
is the Hellenistic period and Alexander's empire which represent an ancient
paradigm of empire, composed of simple states, and the appearance of
cosmopolitan societies.
The introduction of a sound and profound universalism in humanity is at
the core of the Judeo-Christian contribution, but as a general human value it
has been transmitted to all cultures and subsequent times. Islam reinforced
universalism, (ummah), in spite of its internal and external divisions,
which also are frequent in Judaism and Christianity. The faith in only one God
who is Father of all, constitutes an incomparable foundation for universalism.
It is the foundation of fraternity, which was invoked even the French Revolution
invoked as one of the main values for a new civilized humanity. Thus, we leave
nationalist polytheism and arrive at universal monotheism.
Universalism as such is a Christian novelty. Jesus Christ embodies the
definitive overcoming of Jewish nationalist spirituality. Paul is his principal
collaborator in universalizing the good news of a universal love. Christian
revelation is not attached to an untranslatable language or culture, like Islam
in relation to the classic Arabic of the Koran. Some outstanding early
Christian writers knew philosophies like Stoicism, which already had quite a
mature sense of universality and cosmopolitanism. Those philosophies turned out
to be of interest insofar as they developed and enriched the Christian heritage
itself in the peculiar terms of an evangelized culture. At any rate,
universalism did not have much future solely through those philosophies and
cults. For the rest, Christianity remains a summit of universalism in the sense
of depth and extension: there is no other deep union of such magnitude among so
many millions of people in so many places of the world.
A good deal of criticism about many practical deviations throughout the
millenarian history of the Church is right and sensible. Since the peace of
Constantine, the Church has accomplished its universal vocation, too often
through compromise with political and economic powers and with Western
colonialism. However, even in the worst times the Church has served the poor and
preached its universal message of love in purity while suffering persecution.8
Imperialism and colonialism are as old as history. They have created
bridges between cultures, but with devastating consequences for the weak. In our
epoch, Euro- and western-centrism have regrettably been customary in the guise
of modernization. A consequence is the crisis of modernity as a particular plan
of optimistic progress. Today, the sole possibility lies in opening modernity to
a plurality of different cultural projects, interlocking as they may be.
Modernity is much more than the Enlightened project. That is why F. Entrena Durán
upholds "manifold modernities in an age of globalization."9
That openness is not to be confused with "postmodernism," inasmuch as
pluralism is not reducible to relativism.
The so-called Middle Ages surprisingly resemble our contemporary times in
its two general trends: globalization and localism. The typical medieval
situation combined the horizon of universal Christianity, represented by the
pope and the emperor, together with feudalism. At present we combine a global
economic and communicative structure with the revival of regional and local
centers.10
By virtue of its search for purity and original sources, the Renaissance
was in numerous respects even more Christian and universalistic than the former
times. Its cosmopolitanism and its exaltation of human dignity are proverbial.
Furthermore, many of the main capitalist and banking structures of contemporary
globalization came to prominence in the Renaissance. Since then, a continuous
series of overseas travels and migrations, whose great precedent had been the
excursions of Marco Polo in the 13th century, enabled the world to gain
awareness of its unity.
The working-class movement in the 19th and 20th centuries brought a
greater consciousness of international social justice. Unfortunately this
consciousness has been weakened by means of consumerism. Working-class
internationalism has been replaced, or nullified by capitalist transnational
interests. H.-P. Martin and H. Schumann see a need for European labor unions in
order to tame the supremacy of the managerial lobby.11 But Europe is
quite fortified against other less well-off areas. What even European workers
need is an effective worldwide federation of labor unions lest the oppression
suffered by "third world" workers be used as a means to the loss of
social rights by "first world" workers.12
Space travel brings us the opportunity of having a vision of the unity of
our planet, of its physical globality, of its small size in the context of the
universe. All of this presents a meaningful symbolism of our unity and common
destiny.13
REALITY AND NOVELTY OF GLOBALIZATION?
By now it should be clear that we face an ambiguous, seductive,
ideological and complex use of a word. The nature and the main factual features
meant by "globalization," as well as its historical basis, have been
described. It is time to specify to what extent the current manifestation of the
historical trend of globalization is real and new. For this a sound starting
point is found in the comparison between the above eight traits of contemporary
capitalistic globalization and the historical landmarks of universalism.
New Dimensions of Old Practices
The idea of a "free market" of supply and demand where a sort
of invisible hand, as a substitute for Providence, has each individual seek his
own interest while producing the common good, is as old as capitalist theory. It
is pure capitalist theory. And the same insurmountable gap of classic capitalism
between theory and real practice is fully reproduced in current globalization.
The novelty lies in the increasing domination of an oligarchic network of
worldwide corporations. Globalization rests today on "global"
corporations. Like the prevailing contemporary economy, many of those firms are
for the most part financial and speculative, rather than productive.14
Only two percent of the world economy is properly linked to real economy.
Virtual economy exists in a world that is fond of virtual realities. Thus,
globalization turns out to be not much more than a virtual reality. This
globalized economy is particularly feeble in the face of financial crises in
whatever part of the world,15 as evidenced by the recent crises of
the "Asian dragons." The spread of damages is usually more effective
than the spread of benefits; this coincides with our dramatic deficit in
distribution. When will we build a globalization in distribution? That would be
real globalization, an authentic peak in universalism and a real novelty.
Although technological and work systems are not independent upon the
economic system, they have their own historical roots and autonomy. The merit of
the huge growth of production pertains to scientific progress and its
technological application as well as to a more rational labor structure. The
modern technological revolution, indebted to earlier advances, came before the
rise of modern capitalism, which took advantage of that revolution. Science and
technology have provided wealth, while capitalism has conferred the majority of
the technical advantages on a minority. One of the clearest manifestations of
this process of exclusion is the overpowering dominion of a disproportionate,
speculative economy.
Present-day global capitalism, the so-called "neoliberalism,"16
does not prepare for the annihilation of the nation-state, but, rather prepares
its reduction to a police function. It may be quite true that the nation-state
is too big for meeting the needs of individuals and local communities and too
small for solving the problems of a planetwide age. The alternative, however, is
not to have the state reduced to the status of a mere servant of large
capitalist interests. This is the old and gross mistake of a "politica
ancilla oeconomiae?" The problem does not lie in the subjection of politics
to economy in generic terms, but in the kind of disruptive economy that stems
from such political docility. The whole public activity by which people direct
their power in search for the common good must not be limited to the dictates of
the particular economic interests of a group, no matter how much this group and
its chorus of scholars may promise the community. Nor can the excuse of being
"scientific" justify a practical dictatorship or an exclusive, one-way
mentality. The title "scientific" was used by Marxists to canonize
their doctrine; today the prophets of capitalism use the same mantra.
But a worse reductionism is the earlier one consecrated by Machiavelli.
His reductionism lay in the subjection of ethics to a peculiar understanding of
politics expressed in the time-honored phrase "reasons of state": the
surrender of politics to economy followed the capitulation of ethics to
politics. Of course some particular ethics and politics always remain. What is
at stake is the eclipse of the proper broad and humanistic outlook of ethical
reason under a pragmatic version of politics and economy which has scant regard
for the weak.
Supporters of capitalist globalization equate economic progress with
political and ethical progress. G. B. Madison announces "world peace,"
"genuine solidarity" and even a "spiritual civilization." In
his estimation, "The market economy operating under the rule of law is
itself a form of institutionalized ethics;" and capitalist globalization
"constitutes the greatest force yet witnessed in the history of the world
for promoting democracy" (see Madison, 1998). But we wonder whether the
arms race is insignificant to capitalism and its globalization, whether the
growing global gap between the rich and the poor is a sign of solidarity, and,
overall, whether there can be a "spirituality of money."
The "liberal democracy," intended by the globalist
intelligentsia of capitalism is far from being real democracy. The capitalist
argument consists, as usual, in creating a forced dilemma whose only sound
alternative is, precisely, capitalism. Thus, Madison confronts us with
"direct democracy" as the type to be overcome if we want to avoid the
"tyranny of the majority." But such direct democracy nowhere exists.
All have to work to stave off the danger of demagogy and the coarsening of
public attitudes, but today we must be careful, also not to fall into the
clutches of the tyranny of a minority. At present, the most threatening minority
is the top management of large corporations and financial agents, such as the
former Trilateral Commission and the current International Chamber of Commerce,
whose chairman is the Nestlé head, Helmut O. Maucher.17 One cannot
accept Madison's identification of "liberal democracies" with a
respect for human rights, which, moreover, are not to be interpreted only in
individualistic terms.
Critics of capitalist globalization usually propose the recovery either
of the union of politics and economy or, from another standpoint, of the primacy
of politics.18 But they need to go beyond politics in their general
proposals, just as they do in many other individual spheres. We need the primacy
of ethics -- of humanistic, pluralist and solid ethics -- based on dialogue,
freedom and justice for all.
There is another reduction to be noted. The heart is the home of whatever
absolute value we have, the source of our dearest desires, intentions and
convictions. Like the reductions of politics to economy and of ethics to
politics, since Spinoza religion has been reduced to a merely immanent ethics. A
degree of secularization was a necessary purification for religious experience,
but one-sided secularism has brought about fundamentalist or integrist reactions
and eroded the roots of moral convictions. The consequence is not only the loss
or the manipulation of the main monotheistic identities in many countries, but
also the estrangement from the principal lines of our rational Greek heritage,
i.e., Plato and Aristotle. As a result of this whole chain of reductions
(religion to ethics, ethics to politics, politics to economy, economy to the
accumulation of capital), we have come to perceive money as today's global
religion in rich countries. This contemporary reality is not at all new, but its
dimensions are.
Absolute Relativism: "Moneytheism," "New Age" and
Postmodernism
"Moneytheism" is of the utmost importance in order to
understand the profound intensity of the general relativism as the normal
one-way thinking in which we live and move and have our being. The essence of
money is its paradoxical absolute relativity, its ever-changing value, which
makes it totally untrustworthy. By following George Simmel, Gary B. Madison
(1998) describes it properly: "Money is not something `objective' or
`material'; it is in fact a purely `geistig' entity whose `value' is
constituted solely by the (subjective) `evaluations' of acting human beings . .
. the `essence' (value) of money is
totally relative." Consequently, what kind of general mentality is to be
expected among "moneytheists"? The answer lies in an easy and
arbitrary total relativism, disguised as tolerance. All religions are equally
valid, as are almost all moral systems except for a few politically-correct
customs and capitalist interests. Those who dare to criticize such relativistic
dogmas are simply "fanatics." Obviously this is the well-known
Enlightened charge against historical religions and moral traditions.
We are under no illusion that money worship is new. For instance,
Washington Irving wrote early in the last century of "the almighty dollar,
that great object of universal devotion." One or another form of mammonism
is as old as human economic activity, but again the dimensions are new. The
economy has never been as speculative as it is today. Money has never been so
relative and, accordingly, the dominant morality in wealthy countries never so
relativistic. As we appreciate mammonism's step forward, we must be careful not
to fall into a simplistic, iconoclastic attitude. Money itself is not the
problem. We can generalize what Yale law professor, Stephen Carter, stated in
1998 about the US: "The problem in America today is not that we have a
market economy; the problem is, we have let that market economy and its values
dominate too much of our lives."19 The idolatrous approach does
not start in the legion of consumer, but in their ideologues and policy makers.
In this point Dani Rodrik, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School, is accurate.
He questions the dominant religion of increasing economic integration in
developing countries, of ever-expanding trade and capital flows. Openness is not
necessary to economic development and is likely to widen inequality within
countries.20
In this relativistic scene the so-called "new age" has its
place within consumerist countries. The pseudo-religious "new age"
movement is extremely heterogeneous, its main elements being Eastern religious
beliefs (Hindu and Buddhist) as well as Western gnostic, esoteric and
spiritualist tenets. The combination is up to the consumer, or to the particular
leader on whom the consumer may rely. Based on the hope of the new "age of
Aquarius," instead of the past Christian "age of Pisces," there
is a vague common idea of the arrival of a holistic human consciousness, rich in
global harmony. As a universal convergence, relativistic ecumenism, global
definitive self-understanding of humanity the "new age" suits
capitalist globalization nicely. Neither this globalization nor this new age is
essentially new, though they pretend to be absolutely so. In any event, they are
well-suited to each other. In fact, the "new age" is an excellent
paralyzing instrument of the critical conscience.
During this "globalizing" "new" age, postmodernism is
regarded as the new and most representative philosophical tendency of our times
in consumer cultures. There is a strong relation between global capitalism,
Western gnostic esotericism and a philosophical trend like postmodernism. While
referring to capitalist globalization, Madison speaks of "the new
postmodern global age" (1998). Postmodernism mistrusts the great justifying
narratives, (grands récits), and the nation-state is one of its most
vulnerable modern targets. In other respects, postmodernism does not fit in with
the model of capitalist globalization, which remains a typically modern and
grand narrative, confident in progress and intending to be fully objective.
Nevertheless, just as the "new age," postmodernism fosters capitalist
globalization by dispelling critical conscience and promoting the fragmentation
of the social network. The social inclination to a regionalist and localist
fragmentation is favored by the postmodern fragmenting mentality.
Postmodernism embodies a criticism and a denial of "modern"
ideals (mainly Enlightened, Hegelian and Marxist ones). This criticism can
illuminate some aspects of social emancipation. But postmodernism is rather a
refusal than a proposal, merging with capitalist fundamentals into a radical
individualism. The dismantling of objectivity and the retreat to an ironic,
detached and aesthetic view make an eventual feeling of solidarity arbitrary and
weak in the face of the overwhelming objectivity with which transnational
capitalism is apparently spreading. The postmodern fragmentary and relativistic
mentality is most opposed to true globalization, which is contrary to capitalist
globalization insofar as it creates social fragmentation and a greater gap
between the rich and the poor. Postmodernism declares the definitive dismissal
of any great ideal; transnational capitalism is proclaimed itself the only
alternative.
Indeed, global capitalism teaches us that "there is no
alternative." This is one of the attributes most repeated by enthusiasts of
capitalist globalization: "It is not a matter of human choosing"
(Madison, 1998).21 But for those who really believe in human freedom
and are not Hegelians or Stoics, the way we can guide our human trend to
globalization or universalism is open. Not only is the possibility of taking
more advantage of global economic opportunities available, but all the
essentials for humanizing our ever-increasing global coexistence are also within
reach. The single civilization with a new spirituality and ethos which we have
at hand, as voiced by Václav Havel, is contrary to the exploitation conducted
by multinational large corporations and speculative capitalism.
Cultural Asymmetry, "Tittytainment" and Neo-Malthusianism
A world deemed to have no alternative other than capitalism can only move
towards a culture with a strongly capitalist homogenization: that is to say, a
consumerist uniformity (among those who can afford to consume). Like the growth
of economic capitalist homogenization, which is led by the European Union, Japan
and above all the United States, cultural and spiritual uniformity (even more
significant than the economic capitalist model) is largely Eurocentric (i. e.,
British, German and French) and especially prone to becoming Americanized. This
uniformity is not to be mistaken for "Western" culture any longer by
typically Islamic and anti-colonialist criticisms. Genuine and historical
"Western" culture is rooted in a Greco-Roman and Christian heritage,
which, it must be remembered, have quite Oriental origins. This vigorous
heritage has little to do with relativistic moneytheism, variegated "new
age" and disenchanted postmodernism. That is not the type of Western
culture which should be leading the world. What does "McDonald's" have
in common with Plato, Cicero, or St. Paul, Erasmus or Newton? We should never
confuse a global mass culture with a single worldwide civilization. The most
influential culture today is the Anglo-Saxon one, and, on a lesser scale, the
German, French and Japanese. We mean some intellectual and commercial élites
from these cultural areas. Cultural exchange between all different countries in
the world is overwhelmingly asymmetric. It does not follow a model of dialogue
and harmonization, but of absorption. Instead of promoting a real globalization,
it aggravates the distrust and the splits between cultures. The Islamic distrust
towards "the West" is an eloquent example.
What McDonalization and the mass entertainment culture represent can more
accurately be expressed with the formula coined by a former national security
adviser of Jimmy Carter and ideologue of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew
Brzezinski: "tittytainment." This term results from the combination of
"entertainment" and an image of the nourishing milk of a nursing
mother. Thus, "tittytainment" envelops a large-scale project aimed at
contenting a frustrated unemployed majority of the world population by means of
glaring entertainment, sustained by enough feeding. This is the "bread and
circus" of the Romans. Such a strategy is designed to meet the situation
foreseen of the 21st century when just 20 percent of the world's active
population will supposedly be sufficient to keep the world economy in motion.
An interesting manifestation of that ideology took place in a 1995
meeting organized by the American Gorbachev Foundation and held in the Fairmont
hotel in San Francisco. Five hundred top-ranking political, economic and
scientific leaders from the five continents met for three days, discussed and
planned with unanimity the future of humanity. People like George Bush, George
Shultz and Margaret Thatcher shared their forecasts and solutions with leaders
of transnational corporations, the high priests of economics from Stanford,
Harvard and Oxford, the global players of the computer and financial businesses
and delegates from Singapore and Beijing. The former leader of the Soviet
Communist Party called it the new "Global Brain trust." These brainy
pragmatists at the Fairmont established the formula "20 percent -- 80
percent": Twenty percent of the world's active population will be useful,
while the rest will just be fed and entertained. Thereupon, as the Sun
journalist Scott McNealy declared, the question will be "to have lunch or
to be lunch." Even rich countries would lack a significant middle-class.
The unanswerable reason is centered on nothing but the pressure of global
competition (cf. H.-P. Martin & H. Schuman, idem, p. 7-25). Labor will no
longer be a central way of self-realization, but merely a mode of the most
competitive production.
The above analysis must not be disregarded or underrated by the usual
triumphalist advocates of capitalist globalization, who accept as given that the
capitalist model is the only possible form of globalization. It is untenable and
uncritical to neglect the huge worldwide problems of starvation, abject poverty
and constant violations of human rights. The only capitalist response is to
blame every sort of "socialism," including state-directed capitalism.
Whatever problem may be raised, the invariable cause is said to be a lack of
capitalism. According to such "orthodoxy," capitalism cannot but be
pure capitalism. At this point, capitalist globalism fails to differ itself from
19th century "Manchester" capitalism altogether. Capitalist globalism
claims to be the only and irreversible successful system for economy and
politics. It is ironic that it assumes no responsibility for the scandalous and
ongoing injustices in the economic and political fields.
Something to be acknowledged about the leaders of global business is
their clarity of ideas which is no longer witnessed in many national
governments, fluctuating as they do between an enthusiastic economic liberalism
and a threatening protectionism. For instance, President Clinton proposed global
trade talks within the powerful World Trade Organization (established as a
result of the Uruguay Round) in order to promote the export of US agricultural
products. At the same time he threatened Japan with a trade fight over steel
exports. While large corporations aim solely at their own private economic
interests and can manufacture wherever they like in the world, wherever they
find the weakest governments and labor unions, national governments, especially
if they have to represent their communities, waver between the real interest of
the public and the pressure of these insatiable corporations.
Those supposedly in charge of the common good weaken in the face of the
overwhelming private economic interests of large corporations that provide
financial support for electoral campaigns. Political regulation tends to affect
smaller corporations more than the dominant ones, which impose on the world the
lowest wages and the worst working conditions (cf. Blanchette, idem, p.
25). Many political leaders wish to welcome as many multinational firms as
possible without realizing that they are only welcoming a Trojan horse. In the
long term, it is untrue that large corporations benefit a country. Their
interests are too divergent from those of a country. The mirage consists in the
fact that "the economic well-being of every nation has been reduced to the
survival of its oligopolistic system" of large corporations (ibid.,
p. 23).
The purely economic interests of capitalist globalism and its
transnational agents, with their impressive strategies, are extremely wide and
far-reaching. These agents know that their dominion of the world economy will
not be total and unquestioned until they control all strata of culture and the
human spirit. That is why the support of the "new age" and
postmodernism, through the fostering of a radical relativism, is so important
for their cause. "Moneytheism" has as its main dogma that everything
can be bought and sold, money being the measure of everything. In other words,
pure relativity is the measure of everything. Instead of overcoming the old
dichotomy between the individual and the society, the relativism of global
"moneytheism" implies a mass individualism. Almost everything is left
for the individual to decide. Each of us can make his own combination of
religions, investments, aesthetics, politics and purchases, but then we live in
the midst of constant perplexity, recurrent weariness and worldwide mass
fashion. Of course, there is an abundance of constructive and helpful novelties
in our contemporary world, but this is despite capitalist globalism where there
is only room for the strongest; Nietzsche comes to mind.
In its attempt to dominate everything and to eliminate the weak, the
basic policy of global capitalism and its magnates is an unscrupulous control
over the world population. This is the Neo-Malthusian ideology. Malthus's
prediction about the global incapability of producing enough commodities has
proved to be totally groundless. Technology, new work systems and real
scientific economy have once again refuted capitalist predictions. This is what
capitalism does not want to recognize: the problem is not production, but
distribution; the center of economy is not the capital, but the person whom the
capital has to serve. Stubborn as nobody else, capitalist leaders and scholars
try to justify their policies by creating an enemy. The Soviet enemy is knocked
out; Islamic integrism is under control. Hence, the enemy is now proclaimed to
be the growth of population in poor countries. The problem is not to eliminate
poverty, but the poor. The last world conferences in Cairo and Beijing showed
the paramount interest of rich countries and many powerful international
organizations and corporations in changing the mentality of the people. They
attempted to justify a drastic demographic control in poor countries by whatever
means, including abortion on a massive scale, wholesale sterilization and other
virtually genocidal means.
The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) reported in
1999 that demographic growth was lower than expected and that the feared
demographic explosion will not take place. Nevertheless, a large number of
wealthy multinational organizations keep working to make abortion and
sterilization common methods of population control throughout the world,
especially in impoverished areas. Global abortionism and Neo-Malthusianism are
represented by organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, Family Health International, the Ford Foundation, the Pathfinder
Fund, The Population Council (John Rockefeller III) and The Rockefeller
Foundation.22 Millionaires of different types seem to have a common,
intense interest in the control of population. Instead of helping the poor to
find ways to overcome their destitution, they are devoted to financing programs
euphemistically termed as "reproductive health." Some of the
Neo-Malthusian magnates giving millions of dollars to those organizations are,
for instance: Ted Turner, founder of CNN and one of the participants in the
Fairmont meeting; Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft; George Soros, a successful
financial speculator and founder of the Open Society Fund, paradoxically
critical of capitalism; Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest man in the US;
David Packard, founder of Hewlett-Packard and another participant at the
Fairmont meeting.
Neo-Malthusianism rests on Social Darwinism, as presented by Herbert
Spencer in Man versus the State, in which he coins the principle of
"survival of the fittest." Spencer had a remarkable influence on
magnates of his times, like John Rockefeller, Sr. Other scholars followed
Spencer's track: W. G. Sumner; F. Galton, founder of eugenics; K. Pearson.
Generally speaking, social Darwinism possesses a eugenic perspective, being
ultimately racist and marginalizing. In 1912 the First International Conference
on Eugenics took place at London University. Among its vice-presidents were
Winston Churchill and the presidents of Harvard and Stanford Universities.
Perhaps an analysis of current globalization which associates this
phenomenon with other contemporary social phenomena like the "new
age," postmodernism and Neo-Malthusianism, does not seem to some
stereotyped thinkers to be focused on this idea. Hence, a section on
Neo-Malthusianism, in an article such as this, may seem to disrupt, rather than
develop, the thought process. First of all, Neo-Malthusianism is a policy
implemented worldwide and, therefore, cannot remain apart from capitalist
globalization. Secondly, the rulers of capitalist globalization and of
Neo-Malthusianism are for the most part the same. Thirdly, the sources and the
contribution of Neo-Malthusianism are also couched in relativist terms, for they
see human life as having a totally relative value.
The problem is far more serious than is usually thought. Every year there
are at least fifty million abortions the world over.23 Is this not a
"global event?" Unfortunately, there have always been abortions. But
in the last decades, as a result of that global policy, the number of abortions
has escalated. The followers of Social Darwinism may regret such action, but
coldly defend it by the principle that "there is no alternative." This
is as if abortion were a natural phenomenon that nobody has strategically
promoted or imposed and that nobody can stop. Some scholars accept abortion even
in the last months of pregnancy, even on this massive scale. What is most
striking is the silence of many scholars who recognize abortion as the killing
of innocent and defenseless human beings. We should not descend into
apocalypticism; however, to be honest in the face of mass starvation and
abortion, we have to say that current capitalist globalization involves global
killing. This is not new, but the dimensions certainly are.
FIRST STEPS OF A NEW HUMANISTIC UNIVERSALISM
A Real Globalization against Capitalist Globalism
The term globalization has spread from the dominating Anglo-Saxon culture
that serves today as the main center of capitalism. Many Mediterranean and other
Latin scholars prefer to speak of mundialización ("mondialisation,"
"mondializzazione"). Some authors like Alain Touraine
distinguish between "globalization," meaning the pernicious aspects of
the current international relations, and "mondialisation," indicating
the historical trend which is to be accomplished. The dispute between the
editorialists of The Financial Times of London and Le Monde
diplomatique of Paris (1997)
was illustrative of respective positions regarding "globalization"
enthusiastic and critical.
From the outset of our paper we have tried to reflect more acutely on the
different ways of understanding and fostering that event recently called
"globalization" and "mondialisation."24 Whatever
term we use, we have to contemplate the convergence of humanity towards living
together ever more closely which involves more justice and humanism throughout
the world. Such a profound convergence, simultaneously a heritage and a
challenge, cannot be reduced to the expansion of capitalist international trade.
Ultimately, the current mode of capitalism, as it recovers its capitalist
purity, is quite harmful for true globalization. Likewise and paradoxically,
capitalism has a noxious effect on a truly free market. Real freedom in
capitalism is a privilege of the large capitalists. Hence, we can distinguish
between the transnational expansion of capitalism and a real, deep globalization
or universalism; and between what we have been calling "capitalist
globalization" or "globalism" and an authentic free market.
Freedom, in every field and particularly in markets, is not so straightforward
as to be able to work in accordance with a simple mechanism. What is still
working in our markets are remnants of some elements of a free market, despite
the oligopolistic tendency of capitalism. As things stand, a genuine and new
globalization is a real possibility rather than a well-established reality.25
In order to realize such a possibility, some steps should be taken; let us
consider them briefly.
Steps, Hopes and Achievements Centered on the Person
According to J. M. Keynes, talking about the crisis of 1929, when
financial capital obtained so predominant a position, the only way to save
economic and political democracy was the eradication of financial capital. So
radical a solution may never be possible, but at the very least, a political and
ethical control of finances should be deemed necessary. We need freedom from the
withering financial speculation orchestrated by a few international agents. It
is unwise to sign a blank check to central banks pretending to embody a
scientific economic orthodoxy unpolluted by politics. This is the worrysome
scenario surrounding certain activities of the European Central Bank. In any
case, central banks themselves are feeble in the face of stock market flows or
"casino capitalism." The Quantum Fund, led by G. Soros, made the pound
sterling remain outside the European Monetary System in 1992. The crash of
long-term capital management in the US brought to the public eye the clandestine
maneuvers of privileged hedge funds. A concrete measure which is planned is the
Tobin Tax, a moderate tax on all financial transactions. Just 0.1 percent would
be double what is needed in one year for eradicating extreme poverty in the
world .26
But taxes like this one or the wellknown 0.7 percent are not the
definitive and fundamental solution. An entirely new system centered on the
person and not on capital has to be built. That is why generic proposals like
" participative capitalism" (e. g., J. Pérez Iriarte, idem, p.
31) or "responsible capitalism" (G. B. Madison), though attractive,
are contradictions in terms. Participation and responsibility cannot be found in
money, but in the person as the main author of development. All the same, let us
be clear. What an expression like "participative capitalism" may mean
is the synthesis of the ideas of free market and of popular participation or
democracy. However, this is not capitalism. Capitalism has been partly corrected
in its symptoms, but not cured. It is incurable.
Beside Keynes's surgical solution and other initiatives already
mentioned, many scholars are asking for a new world social contract.27
These proposals are still completely generic. They do not appear to imply the
academic opposition between contractarian and natural law theories. As we can
envisage them, they just aim at the need of a worldwide egalitarian dialogue,
leading to a universal agreement to assure and to generalize social conquests of
the welfare state -- presumably not on a traditional state basis. In fact, all
those who face both the dangers and the opportunities of the new international
situation unanimously agree about the incapacity of any single nation to cope
with the new global order on its own. One by one, every more-or-less isolated
nation is going to be the "lunch" of capitalist globalism. On the
contrary, grouped together in a sincere close collaboration, nations may have a
better "lunch" than ever.
For this purpose one of the logical first steps is integration within
international cultural families. If cultures are to integrate themselves with
each other, they need to start cultivating a sense of great community within
their cultural families. Until now, the only successful cultural family, as
proposed here, is the Anglo-Saxon one. This partnership is one of the reasons
behind British-American predominance in the world. Other communities are trying
to share their historical ties more consciously, for example, the Ibero-American
(better known in English as "Latin-American," but including Portugal
and Spain), and the Arabic communities. But now, they have difficulties
overcoming their differences.
Some interesting proposals have been put forward by O. Blanchette (cf. ibid.,
pp. 25-26). He finds that some are resisting the cultural invasion of large
corporations in the US. Consumer advocates like Ralph Nader set us free from
depending simply on the assurances of the huge firms of their own accord.
Environmentalists are also carrying a nucleus of resistance against the
destruction of nature carried out by the same corporations. The efforts of the
labor movement around the world have to be unified. Finally, Blanchette
appraises all sorts of activists, individuals as well as the famous
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Much hope is being placed on the ambiguously termed "nongovernmental
organizations."28 Their valuation cannot be uniform because they
are too different from each other. Generally speaking, the recent movement of
NGOs represents the official recognition of the figure of the volunteer as the
established ethical conscience within consumerist societies. The typical figure
of the volunteer is to be understood in contrast to that of the militant. While
the volunteer is predominantly oriented to assistance and to a definite
problematic area, the militant prioritizes radical transformation of unjust
structures in a broad outlook. To assist people in need is a duty. Mere
palliative aid (let us say "palliativism," asistencialismo in
Spanish) reinforces unjust structures by mitigating and massaging a number of
their symptoms or aftermaths. Volunteering can be a preliminary way of social
commitment, but we need to be militant. Our generosity should make us offer not
only some free time, but all our heart and genuine efforts.
Some of these organizations are experiencing important renewal in their
areas and adopt a certain form of critical approach. Many others are not even
financially independent from government or lobbies. By and large, NGOs are well
integrated into the capitalist system. Though they may be critical of some
aspects of capitalism, they willingly accept the basic rules of the game. What
is more, they have absorbed and domesticated almost all militant and
revolutionary energies in consumerist societies. To be honest, we have to admit
that a particular use of terms like "revolution" has increased a
demagogic culture. In a way, capitalist globalization is being proclaimed as the
new and definitive revolution. Rather, it embodies an extinction of the
revolutionary spirit, and for this purpose most NGOs support it.
Nonetheless, some achievements give us encouragement. The end of the
negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investments shows the efficacy of
new strategies of social commitment. The coordinated mobilization of numerous
groups of different associations and skillful usage of the Internet have proved
to work on this occasion (cf. C. de Brie, ibid.).
Economic freedom does lie not only in trade freedom or the free market.
It comprises the entire economic life, production, distribution and consumption.
In this regard the successful and consolidated experiences of employee-shared
ownership are a sign of hope.29 Here we can recall the general
principle that "the poor have to be the main agents of their own
emancipation."
In the international arena this principle is a key for a real relief of
the implacable external debt of impoverished countries. We cannot expect any
relief from international agencies like the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank or the World Trade Organization. They operate under criteria such as:
"Relief will remain linked to good policy and performance"
("Relieving Debt," in The Financial Times, 22nd-Jan., 1999, p.
23). These capitalist organizations attempt to impose what they consider to be
an orthodox policy in exchange for some loan which will increase indebtedness.30
The only viable and right solution for so many millions of people rests on the
cancellation of the debt, as proposed by the campaign "Jubilee 2000".
Sometimes the primary help is just to let them live.
Employee-ownership, as well as liberation from an oppressive debt, point
to the social economy as the fulfillment of economic democracy. A. C. Morales
Gutiérrez (ibid., p. 363-366) chooses six principles for an alternative
system to the unilateral dominion of the state or of the market: (1) a modified
but not eliminated welfare state, intended to free us from economic
arbitrariness and insecurity; (2) less state in return for more participation
and more market in return for more opportunities; (3) a complete juridical
framework, regulating limits and conditions of the market; (4) exemplarity of
the state in observing the law; (5) the importance of beliefs, values and
customs with constant reference to human rights and to civic solidarity; (6) the
efficacy of economic democracy, of hybrid and alternative ways. J. Rifkin
focuses economic and even political democracy on social economy. Economy can no
longer be reduced to market and state. Market, state and social economy are to
be in perfect balance, social economy being the oldest and most important. A new
political force will be required as the support of social economy. Such a force
is designed to demand proper investments of a part of the benefits from the
market and the public sector and is expected to consist of the millions of
people volunteering for social service.31
On the horizon there are steps to be taken, hopes to encourage us and
achievements to serve as practical examples. From these we must learn historical
globalization and build relatively a new humanistic universalism.
NOTES
1. Fond Monetaire International, Les Perspectives de l'economie
mondiale, May 1997, quoted by J. Pérez Iriarte, "Globales, locales
y perdidos," in Claves de razón práctica, n. 85, 1998, p. 24.
2. On this narrow and exclusive way of thinking called TINA see A. C.
Morales Gutiérrez, "Pensamiento único y sistema económico
alternativo," in Revista de Fomento Social, 52, 1997, p. 345-368.
3. See for instance G. B. Madison (idem) and U. Nieto De Alba,
"Globalización, Regionalización y Caos," in ABC, 23 Dec.,
1998, p. 56.
4. J.-F. Rischard, "A Crisis of Complexity and Global
Governance," in International Herald Tribune, 2 Oct., 1998, p. 8.
5. Confer J. F. Martín Seco, "El fin del Estado," in El
Mundo, 10 Nov., 1998, p. 4.
6. Confer J. García Roca, "La globalización entre el ídolo y la
promesa," in Éxodo, n. 39, 1989, p. 35-42.
7. P. Teilhard de Chardin, El fenómeno humano, 1974, p. 43.
8. The theologian Giulio Girardi makes a keen criticism of those
deviations, but seems to recall only the misbehavior of the Church, except for
the theology of liberation, which he appraises as a paradigm of cultural
alternatives to the exploitation within globalization (cf. "Globalización
cultural educativa y su alternativa popular," in Éxodo, idem,
p. 26-34). There has always been theology of liberation in the Church, since the
Apostles and the Fathers, though sometimes in the minority.
9. F. Entrena Durán, "La modernización: del etnocentrismo
occidentalista a la globalización," in Revista de Fomento Social,
53, 1998, p. 195.
10. The emergence of the new localism is accurately surveyed by C. J.
Navarro Yáñez, "Globalización y localismo: nuevas oportunidades para el
desarrollo," in Revista de Fomento Social, 53, 1998, p. 31-46. Here
there is patent a very desirable opportunity for a more participatory democracy
thanks to the growing relevance of the local sphere in the framework of
globalization.
11. Cf. H.-P. Martin and H. Schumann, La trampa de la globalización,
1998, p. 300.
12. See a wider explanation in Oliva Blanchette, "Globalization or
Humanization: A Question of Priorities in Human Development," in Philosophical
Challenges and Opportunities of Globalization (Washington, D.C.: The Council
for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2001).
13. See the useful commentary in G. F. McLean, ed., "Globalization
as Diversity in Unity," in idem, p. 255.
14. See O. Blanchette, idem, p. 19 and G. B. Madison, idem,
p. 28.
15. See a more accurate explanation in Guillermo de la Dehesa, "La
globalización económica y el futuro del estado," in Claves de razón
práctica, 1998, n. 87, p. 26.
16. As a result of our analysis, we may well have reservations about the
substantial innovation of this stage of capitalism: it is not really new
("neo-"). The oft-repeated term "liberalism" depends on the
idea of a free market, but the capitalist market is not free -- today less than
ever -- but oligopolistic. Capitalism is neither liberal nor neoliberal. This is
just propagandist terminology for capitalism.
17. See Christian De Brie, "Cómo se hizo añicos el AMI," in Le
Monde diplomatique, 14 Dec., 1998, p. 14. Maucher also takes the chair of
the European Round Table of Industrialists and of the World Economic Forum of
Davos.
18. See J. Pérez Iriarte, idem, p. 28; H.-P. Martin and H.
Schumann, idem, p. 19.; G. Salvini, "Globalizzazione e Paesi in via
di sviluppo," in Civiltà Cattolica, n. 3550, 1998, p. 353.
19. Cf. G. Overholster, "Champions of Reckoning Ought to Stop and
Think," in Intern. Herald Tribune, 21 Jan., 1999, p. 9.
20. Cf. Fred Hiatt, "Too Much Blind Faith in Openness," idem,
p. 8.
21. However, some voices point out the acute danger for the continuity of
globalization. For instance, the diplomat C. A. Zaldivar claims that a
unilateral leadership of the US, the European Union or Japan could bring about a
recession and the end of globalization. A failure of financial integration in
producing growth could block the free flow of capitals and give rise to
protectionism (cf. "La globalización en crisis," in El País,
29 Sept., 1998).
22. I follow here an excellent book on the matter, The War against
Population (San Francisc: Ignatius Press, 1988) by Jacqueline Kasun. My only
reservations concern her excessive enthusiasm for the market, in opposition to
any imposed central population planning.
23. Cf. B. Manier, "Terra terá seis bilhôes de pessoas,"
in A Tarde, 9 July, 1998, p.13.
24. Until now we have used "globalization," as we are writing
in English. While using an adapted form of "globalization" (with a
Latin root) is very easy in Latin languages, English has not assumed something
like "mondialization." It should not be that difficult. Another word
we use and available both to English and Latin languages is
"universalism." There is no point in insisting here on the convenience
of the term "universalism," but let us remember that it is independent
of the controversy between "globalization" and "mondialisation,"
especially in its rich etymology: "uni-verse," i.e., turned into one
or combined into one whole.
25. See Adela Cortina, "Entrevista sobre la globalización," in
Éxodo, idem, p. 13.
26. Cf. about hedge funds and the Tobin Tax: F. A. Garza, "`El final
de la historia'. Es necesario un control sobre los mercados de capitales,"
in Acontecimiento, n. 49, 1998, p. 14-15. Even at the 1999 Davos
conference capitalist leaders from Japan, Germany, France and Britain were
pressing ahead quickly with measures that would toughen regulation, monitoring
and oversight of international flows of money through vehicles such as hedge
funds. But American officials kept to the orthodoxy, being its first
beneficiaries, and rejected the creation of new regulatory structures (cf. International
Herald Tribune, 30-31 Jan., 1999, p. 1).
27. See, e. g., J. Pérez Iriarte, idem, p. 31; G. Salvini, idem, p. 353;
I. Ramonet, "Nuevo siglo," in Le Monde diplomatique," n.
39, Jan. 1999, p. 1.
28. E.g., J. Joblin considers "the NGOs to be the laboratories where
the future is being prepared" ("Chiesa e mondializzazione," in Civiltà
Cattolica, n. 3542, Jan. 1998, p. 137).
29. A present-day example is reported by R. Donkin ("La dolce
cooperativa," in The Financial Times, 22 Jan., 1999, p. 9). David
Erdal did a careful comparative analysis of a large number of cooperative
ventures, many of which were over 100 years old, in Imola, Italy. His conclusion
is that "egalitarian communities are better than others in important
ways." Interesting aspects are that Imola makes no great divide between
rich and poor, and promotes greater voluntary work and more employee training.
Life in general is of a higher standard. Erdal's finding was well received by
delegates at the annual International Employee Ownership Conference.
Another significant case comes from the research of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare of the US in 1973 about the effects of a greater
participation of workers. The result was that the participation of workers in
management and benefits, together with guaranteed labor rights, brings about a
higher productivity (cf. A. C. Morales Gutiérrez, idem, p. 353).
30. All the same, organizations like the IMF pretend to be very
charitable, as we read the self-apology of its vice-president, S. Fisher, at the
1999 conference of business leaders in Davos. Being optimistically fixed on
their capitalist interests, in this meeting Senator John Kerry and the former
vice-governor of the Bank of England, Howard Davis, presented their conclusion
that "globalization" is irreversible and most beneficial for humanity.
They see only some financial problems; talk of massive starvation was taboo.
31. Cf. J. Rifkin, The End of Work: the Decline of the Global Labor
Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era, 1994, p. 337-338 in the Spanish
edition.