The globalisation which we are witnessing, driven by imperialism and its instruments (IMF, WTO), poses problems to which we are forced to respond. The ideologues of the bourgeoisie by one means or another, are attempting to theorise and in many cases to justify globalisation, for example through MAI (which for the moment has been frozen but not eliminated).
The gathering in Seattle at the end of last year laid bare the real financial and political interests which are in play and being used against the people of course. Let us leave on one side for the time being the analyses of Seattle -which together with MAI is an imperialist strategy of the first order- but let us underline the poisonous campaign which imperialism, principally the US, is undertaking to convince people of the benefits of the globalisation. Thus the unbearable Francis Fukuyama (the prophet of the “End of History”) returns to the fray and with total self-confidence states:
“Globalisation is one of the most progressive forces in the world today. (...) Globalisation in the form of direct foreign investments on the part of multinational companies creates employment (...) and bring with it the need for greater transparency and openness, education, new technologies which follow best practice (...) the WTO can become not only the defender of economic freedom but also of the freedom of humanity in general.” (1)
According to this Yankee philosophy, globalisation is the panacea for all the ills of the world. And according to the economist Thomas Freidman it requires a “world government” capable of centralising and directing this process. Naturally this world government must be headed by the US, something which Clinton himself has said more than once.
Globalisation like the MAI agreements (temporarily frozen) is, in brief, when we rid ourselves of all the fancy rhetoric and propaganda, neither more nor less than the general enrichment of the richest and the continuing impoverishment of the poorest, by means of the elimination of all government regulations and barriers for the “benefit of free trade”. This is the essence of free trade, a theory which moreover has nothing new about it since it was developed by the English economist Ricardo (1772-1823), who stated that free trade allows different countries to profit from the advantages of “an international division of labour”. Obviously, by “different countries” we have to understand different bourgeoisies in those days, and different imperialisms today.
According to the economist Martin Seco:
“international trade doesn’t take place between countries with different economies (developed, capital intensive; underdeveloped in labour power), but rather it takes place between first world nations with economies at the same level and with similar industries; the countries of the third world hardly participate at all in commercial exchange and in the most extreme cases they remain practically isolated from world economy, and are unable to compete in any aspect.” (2)
This is what is actually happening and it is one of the reasons why Seattle was a partial failure for imperialism. But, let us be aware, this imperialist failure was not a victory for the people, even though we saw the participation of the most varied popular organisations. This is a delayed contest, while international capital marshals its forces for the next match.
As has been said by some sociologists such as the French writer Edgar Morin we saw in Seattle the beginning of the 21st century, “the initial struggle of the coming century, that which outlines its features: on both the human and the planetary scale”. However, what of the working class, the proletariat, the popular masses? For these gentlemen they are passive classes and sectors, without any activity of their own, who trust everything to the unions which pressure them to reach compromises even with the WTO. In Davos, union representatives have just engineered an agreement between the WTO and ILO on “the expansion of trade and labour standards”. (3)
When in his speech at Seattle, Clinton proposed the cancellation of the debt of those countries “on the road of development” in order that “their children might be able to buy mobile telephone and personal computers”- he was not just making a bad joke. Not only was it more evidence of the habitual ignorance of the Yankee leaders, almost all of them semi-literate, but he was simply talking about what the powerful companies are hoping to obtain through the course of the three years duration of the WTO meetings. This is not to put an end to the poverty and backwardness of these peoples (poverty and backwardness created by the greed of colonialism). What the Yankee imperialists hope for (as also do the Germans, French, Spanish, etc.) is to put these countries even further into debt with new “generous” loans ... for investment in personal computers and telephones while the people suffer real hunger and dreadful poverty and lack the most basic necessities for health. This is the implacable law of capitalism: trade before freedom; ever greater increase of profit without letting up on the infliction of misery and suffering for the people.
This reality has been made evident in the recent meeting in Davos (January, February 2000) where we saw launched “ the new economics” which may bring about an absolute disaster in the so-called third world. According to the president of the World Bank, James D. Wolfensohn, 60 per cent of the 6 thousand million inhabitants of the planet live in the third world and of those, 2 thousand million earn less than $2 a day and around a thousand million are completely illiterate. But trade is going well, as far as the Clintons, Blairs and Schröders, etc. are concerned.
* * *
For some apologists for globalisation this will result in the setting up of some kind of world government, without barriers or restrictions to hinder its function, or as suggested by Ricardo Petrella, of the Catholic University of Lovaina, the necessity for “the establishment of a planet wide democracy (...) which is already on the order of the day in our present society”.
At first sight it might seem that this “planet-wide democracy” with its “world government” should overcome not only governmental economic barriers, but also all frontiers (not only geographical ones) and should achieve a world at peace, in which all peoples would be equal in their privileges and duties, as a result of a perfectly regulated system (Fukuyama). It could appear that one is talking about universal socialism. However, it is evident that the Japanese-American philosopher and his followers have in mind everything being under the control of a king of super imperialism, that is to say globalised capitalism.
In fact the more we look, we do not see the disappearance of frontiers, but on the contrary the opposite. For example, with the collapse of the USSR and the triumph (momentary, yet a triumph which cannot be denied) of imperialism and globalisation, three federal states (the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) have split up partly of their own accord, and partly the intervention of imperialist powers (among these one must include the Vatican). They have since converted themselves into 22 states, thus creating many more new frontiers.
Imperialism in its highest stage cannot remove itself from the inherent contradictions in its situation. Imperialism which by itself tends towards globalisation, is obliged to overcome barriers but at the same time it creates further barriers and frontiers in order to defend and extend its interests. In the present uni-polar world, with the incontestable hegemony and predominance of the US, frontiers multiply or disappear according to the convenience of the dominant imperialism. However at the same time there enter into the picture the interests of other imperialisms, who although they may not yet be able to dispute the terrain of the US, create their own economic, political and military networks (for example the “German revenge”).
This is known perfectly well by the Washington government, which does not like the domination of Germany in the European Union and the growth of the possible new powers such as China or Japan, since sooner or later these will dispute the hegemony of the US. Brzezinski, who was minister of national security in US, has written clearly:
“The capacity of the US to maintain its effective world supremacy, depends on how it approaches the complex balance of forces in Eurasia; the priority must be keeping under control the growth of other regional powers, to stop them threatening the world supremacy of the US. If one uses the most brutal terminology of the epoch of ancient imperialism, then we can say there are three fundamental demands of imperialist strategy: to stop underground alliances and to keep the satellite states dependent in terms of security; to guarantee the protection and obedience of the tax payers and to prevent the barbarians from making alliances among themselves.”
We can see Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc. as the satellite states and China, Japan and Russia as the barbarians...
Europe and the world day by day are becoming increasingly dependent on the US, and the US will do everything possible by every means to avoid any change in this situation. They take upon themselves the right to intervene economically, politically and militarily wherever their interests require it. This leads inevitably to the sharpening of the contradictions between imperialisms, which showed itself as the motive in the aggression against Yugoslavia in Kosova. And in its turn this causes changes in the inter-relationships between the imperialist forces, the breaking of alliances and the establishment of new ones, confrontations, etc.
* * *
Does globalisation tend to reduce unequal development? I believe that one can
say categorically that it does not cause any reduction in inequality, but on the
contrary it increases it. Today‘s world is not the result of friendly
agreements between imperialist powers, capitalist countries, etc., but rather of
ferocious competition among them, each
devouring the other. The collapse and defeat of Russian social
imperialism is an irrefutable proof of the uneven development of imperialism
and of its internal struggles.
We can affirm that not only are the differences between the rich and poor countries and between the first and third worlds (and the second) not diminishing, but in fact these differences have never stopped increasing. One of the main aspects of globalisation is that of deregulation that is to say a greater flexibility in functioning, in investment, in production at the lowest possible cost, along with decentralisation of the processes of manufacture and assembly.
Deregulation involves privatisation of the public sector, transport, communication, health, etc. and also complete freedom (against the workers) of labour contracts, for example the right to sack with out compensation. All these measures do not contribute to the harmonious development of the various countries. On the contrary they require a merciless struggle, the search to crush the opposition. With complete cynicism this was recognised at the previously mentioned meeting at Davos by an American businessman, Michael D. Capellas: "There is only one message: eat them before they eat you"...
The paradoxical result is that in the epoch of the scientific-technical revolution, of the enormous development of communications, of journeys into outer space etc., we see through out the world (not only in Africa, Asia and Latin America) situations which remind us of the English Industrial Revolution, when the working class was exploited at starvation level wages and with exhausting working days, and with almost no social security. We are witness to ferocious efforts, particularly in Europe to eliminate the social achievements which the working class has conquered through struggle during the last century. The attacks on social security, health, and public education in favour of private (generally religious) education, the lack of opportunities for youth etc. etc. are part of the order of the day for globalised capitalism.
Marx in "Capital" and Engels in "The Condition of Working Class in England" analysed the industrial revolution which began in England in the 19th century and drew conclusions which today, disregarding differences of time and nuances of meaning, are completely relevant, however much they may annoy social democrats and opportunists of every type.
The proletariat in spite of the intervening developments, continues to be the essential and determining element (organised and led) of the class struggle. The class struggle has not disappeared as is claimed by bourgeois propagandists, nor will it disappear as long as classes exist. Neither globalisation nor any imperialist systems can ever bring classes to an end. There lies the motor of history.
* * *
A final and simple consideration: in this imperialist society which is
globalising its economy and because of this will globalise its main policies, in
spite of the inevitable contradictions and inter-imperialist clashes, it is
already URGENT to "globalise" our own work,
our resistance, our struggle
shoulder to shoulder with the proletariat and the popular classes.
It is urgent and it is a necessity which
Marxist-Leninists cannot fail to meet.
“Wall
Street Journal” and “El Pais”, Madrid 19.12.99
“El Mundo”, 7.12.99
“El Mundo”, 1.2.2000
February 2000
From "October" of Spain