What Kind of Globalization, if any, has the Majority of People Ever Known?
Full globalization is something enjoyed by the 1%
Globalization, as a complete lifestyle of individual freedom everywhere, has never existed for the majority of humanity. Had it been so, globalization would probably be irresistible and have a long life-span.
If by globalization we mean what academics, legislators, policy analysts, and business advocates routinely meant in the early 1990s, that is, a phenomenon of increased interdependence and interconnections incorporating the world as a whole, with increased movement of capital, goods, and services, along with higher volumes of travel and a telecommunications revolution—then, yes, globalization has existed, more or less. But two things were always limiting factors: infrastructure, and much more importantly, the ability to pay.
Globalization was paid for, and thus to partake of globalization one must buy into it. There was never anything “inevitable” about it, the way some of its propagandists cheered (or threatened); it was never anything like a force of nature. And for most people, globalization is something that happened to them, coming at them from a core of wealthy nations, and not something they could actively direct in their own interests.
The early anti-globalization movement of the late 1990s, which was dominated by socialists and anarchists, focused on the harmful impacts of unfettered privatization that gave free rein to giant transnational corporations. The impacts included job losses; the destruction of a range of local industries; increased pollution; and the erosion of democracy through diminished sovereignty. The International Monetary Fund became, as it was dubbed in Jamaica, the International Ministry of Finance—every nation had to be on “the plan”. The plan could be summarized as: trade liberalization; greater openness to foreign direct investment; divestment of state enterprises (the withdrawal of the state from the economy); deregulation of private industry; cuts to social spending (the IMF insists it never demanded these); and, floating exchange rates, among other measures. Together, the measures contained in “the plan” came to be labelled as “neoliberalism,” wrongly so, as numerous activists and academics (myself among them) were easily confused by some of the ideological overlaps between “the plan” and the libertarian ideology of the likes of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian School of Economics.
The key actor in globalization, contrary to actual neoliberal proscriptions, was the state. States laid the groundwork, established the legal frameworks, and did all of the domestic and international work necessary for globalization to exist. States enforced globalization. Likewise, states have led the de-globalization process, by restricting trade through tariffs and preferential trading arrangements, and by imposing more controls on investment and international banking, not to mention by restricting the movement of people.
The newer anti-globalization movement is associated with the political right-wing. It is nowhere as anti-capitalist as its progenitor. In fact, it even misidentifies its target by replacing a critique of globalization (the process), with a denunciation of a vague, never defined “globalism” (an ideology). The problem is that “globalism” is not really even an ideology: it is more of a perspective, or an opinion about the state of the world. Globalism holds that many of the world’s most pressing problems do not respect borders, and thus public policy must be fashioned that takes into account the world’s interdependence. Globalism acknowledges that events in one country can be shaped by events in another country. Seeing the world as a whole, greater than the sum of its parts, is also globalism—and it is simply an analytical paradigm in this case, not an ideology.
What the word “globalism” does permit (some might say encourages) is the identification of specific persons or groups as “the globalists”. Among the more extreme fringes of public discourse, “the globalists” are synonymous with “the Jews,” who form a secretive “cabal” that owns and controls everything. Here anti-globalism is simply a resuscitation of old 1930s nationalist ideologies, which in turn built on centuries of fear of the displaced, wandering Other.
All of the above is meant to identify another position—and not so much a position as just a basic state of being, one that is neither pro- nor anti-globalization, neither pro- nor anti-globalist. It refers to the fact that, apart from a limited and often involuntary and unsolicited set of changes, most people have never known nor enjoyed globalization as a complete lifestyle.
For most people on this planet, thus excluding the top 1% of income earners and owners of wealth, there is no unhindered freedom of movement. The world of the average person is one of borders, border controls, passports, visas, and time limits on stays abroad. They do not own private jets, and thus their dependency is deepened further: on the whims of airlines. Few have multiple passports. Almost none can afford to purchase citizenship in offshore tax havens
Similarly, for most people there is also no freedom of movement for their personal effects. On this front they face customs inspections; they need to issue detailed declarations; and extensive duties have to be paid. Everything they purchase from abroad is subject to inspection, taxation, surveillance, or seizure.
There is no freedom of movement of capital for the vast majority. They can send small remittances, of course—and many do not need to do more than that. But if they were to attempt large wire transfers (circa $10,000 US or more), they will face limits on how much they can transfer, how often, and even restrictions on where they can send their money (not to a business, not to a specific country, etc.). Payments may be intercepted, and persons are forced to answer questions about the purpose of the attempted transfer. On the receiving end, a bank may be mandated to ask for evidence of the source of the funds. And then there are foreign exchange controls: in some countries, your money is held prisoner.
In the name of combating terrorism and drug cartels—problems that globalization greatly facilitated or even aggravated—states intervene to limit funds transferred between ordinary persons, or between small businesses. Meanwhile, large banking interests, such as Toronto Dominion Bank, have moved billions for drug cartels. Investors are somehow able to move millions and billions overseas—no weekly $14,000 limit for them.
Even living the libertarian dream is something only the select few can afford. Consider the case of Próspera, a private quasi-sovereign enclave built inside Honduras. A creature of American billionaires and Trump backers like Peter Thiel (“anti-globalist” you say?), this state-within-a-state is situated in the country that is a major source of migrants to the US, about whom so many Americans complain and want to see expelled. There is no clearer example of the two-tiered globalization that exists than this case. Globalization for some, but not for others. Sovereignty for some, but not for others.
Given the absence of globalized democracy, most working people have no voice, no role in decision-making, and are not allowed to cast a vote on whether they want globalization, or not. I suspect that most would want to live in a world without borders, passports, restrictions on the flow of cash. They too might like to build a home in another location, and perhaps move there permanently. And why shouldn’t they? Thus the neoliberal ideal of the freedom of movement of capital and people is not the problem: the problem is that it never materialized for most of humanity.
States and corporations rule this planet, not some vague “globalism” nor some imagined “neoliberalism”. Those who might have wished to fashion a globalization that worked to their benefit, have no say whatsoever.
Lastly, here is an idea that addresses the so-called “migrant crisis”. Suppose that 100,000 persons from country A were to enter country B, with or without the permission of country B (it’s irrelevant in this hypothetical case). There ought to be reciprocity. Representatives of country B should be able to tell country A: “We took 100,000 of your people. This means that there are now 100,000 free places in your country. You therefore agree to allow unimpeded entry into your country by 100,000 of our citizens who might want to settle there”. Country B could run a lottery for all applicants who wish to build a base in country A. Had this sort of balance existed, the anti-immigration campaigns we witness today might have evaporated, and the so-called “problem” of migration might have been redefined as an opportunity.