There are different definitions for Globalization. It depends if you are talking with an idealist or a realist. The idealist perceives a world of peace, of living in harmony, a world without borders, a world without poverty wherein resources are shared equitably. The idealist sees a single monetary unit, and either no religion or a united religion. They see the sharing of wealth and of ideas in a Utopian society.
Globalization is a theoretical model. The realist sees a system on paper that may or may not be perfect, but whose existence is managed by a flawed and imperfect humanity. While the concept may be logical, when subjected to the frailties of human greed, corruption and graft, it will fail. The human component destroys the value.
We have watched the marching army of globalization expand exponentially despite its historical failure. Why? Why do we continue to propel forward a failed philosophy?
Because the ‘we’ that propels is the same interest that is gaining financially. Proponents of globalization typically include the uber wealthy elite; Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc… who see the expansion of their wealth as a means for greater power. Power wields control. And control requires an agenda of Communism. Communism is the relinquishment of all property to the state, the state being those uber elite. It is a common man working when he can and being paid what he needs. But need is undefinable. Need for one person may mean five cars, and for another one.
The initial purpose of globalization was to reduce world poverty. So how has it faired? According to one study, poverty in the US since 1980 has expanded radically. And according to the OECD, most of the reduction of world poverty has been in China. According to the World Bank, despite economic growth in much of Africa, extreme poverty remains at 50%. Why? Because the economic growth is skewed to belong to a select few. Inequality still reins. In a 27 year span ending in 2008, poverty in Africa declined 4%. Whether this number is true or not is a part of the problem as governments of Africa, India and China have been charged with releasing corrupt data to lift their statistics. So if glob alization has done virtually nothing to eliminate poverty, what has it accomplished?
Globalization has created greater wealth for the few.
As I have said before, statistics are only so good as the agenda of the person using them. If we measure a countries progress simply by their GDP growth rate, we fail to dig into the entire picture. GDP is a measurement of the ‘flow of goods through the economy’. Globalization opened investments from the ubers, but that flow remained in the hands of the ubers instead of being distributed to the people. Thus, the wealth growth is a relative statement.
While economic globalization has been the trend, is it possible to separate economic policies from political, cultural and societal policies?
No. At least, not any longer. They are so completely interwoven that they can not exist as separate entities. But the gears have been in a forward propulsion for more than a decade, so how do you de-globalize? It’s much like trying to de-Obamacare. The train wreck is inevitable, all we can do is be ready with a box of band-aides. The train wreck for globalization would be the continued displacement of wealth to a select few, undermining even the middle class until the system is fully exponentiated and we have two classes – poor and wealthy.
As the cries are rising for some global boundaries, the ubers moved quickly to hedge their bets buying into agriculture, not land on paper, but land that you can touch and feel! Land and water will be the last vestige for control.
On a world level of economics, politics and culture, globalization requires total control. And it is this fear that drives greater skepticism. It requires leaving behind inherent cultural values. It requires a redirection toward a singular goal – money. It requires being put in a box that defines who and what you are much like the communist proletariat. This collectivism then squeezes out individuation, and the rebels rise.
On paper, Communism was a doctrine that was conceived on a belief that it was the right thing to do for the good of society. That it was ‘Wise’. It held to a Utopian theory. In its infancy, it was created to abolish poverty and to instil peace. But the cost was order and control. Absolute control discards freedom. It was the loss of freedom that brought down communism. Humans thrive on freedom, they die when trapped, confined, and controlled.
So, where we are going on our current trend can have catastrophic consequences if we don’t wake up and get our heads out of mainstream drivel. They feed our brains with baseless information and self pleasure until we no longer notice our loss of freedom – until it is too late.