Financial Despotism: Globalization In A World Order

Does Globalization Work?

12/31/10

Any system that punishes success, as the current system that is globalization does, cannot possibly work. Punishing people's individual successes is a system of despotism.

If history is any indication, globalization has a horrible track record. From ancient Rome, to Napoleon, to the British Empire, to Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union are just a few examples of many where globalization has spelled doom to the world.

My main thesis is that the globalization of today punishes individual success. I realize this is a lofty claim, considering the centralized media would have you believe otherwise. In good time I will attempt to explain such a thesis, but for now I feel it's best to tackle a few myths regarding today's incarnation of globalization. Many of these myths are prevalent in our schools, if you disagree with such myths, you're exiled by the means of horrible grades and academic probation.

Myth 1: Globalization reduces wars and promotes world peace: History shows just the opposite. Globalization increases warfare because of other countries inter-dependency on one another. I realize the advocates who promote this myth use the same argument as I to suggest this creates peace. Inter-dependency never creates peace, but individual freedom does. When the individual is free, and feels he/she is dependant on nobody, he/she doesn't feel the need to interfere with another. However, if the choices of another can affect him/her greatly without his/her consent, he/she will feel the need to intervene. This same argument can apply to nations and this is how wars are started. Take for example WWI. Before the war, almost every single nation on planet Earth was aligned with one and another. Obviously globalization didn't stop WWI, and in the end, WWI ended up being a prelude to the even bloodier WWII.

Myth 2: Globalization increases world freedom: Any system that has been brought to the world through force and manipulation cannot be good, and thus cannot by any means be considered freedom. I never once voted for globalization, yet I'm living daily with the consequences of actions for which I didn't have a vote or even a say. The majority of the consequences have been negative. This isn't freedom. I call this despotism. Globalization is a system of financial despotism.

Myth 3: Globalization lowers poverty around the world and increases wealth: That decision rests completely with the financial despots who run the world. They can decide at any moment who lives and who dies, who is poor and who will be rich. You see, we surrendered our freedoms for globalization, under the argument that it would increase world wealth. Indeed, for many countries it has increased wealth, but the cost of losing our freedoms is far too great. At any moment, the despots can simply pull the wealth away from the countries that have seemingly benefited. The truth of the matter is there are huge winners and losers in the globalization deck of cards, but what truly makes the situations unethical are the victories and defeats are not of the nation's own makings, but rest completely on the whims and fate of powerful men who run this world.

Myth 4: Globalization increases innovation: I find it puzzling how many people can make such an argument considering that at the birth of today's globalization, western capital powers were moving into 3rd world countries denying their means to individual innovation. Somebody else came up with the innovation for them, and as such, they were denied the means to pursue and advance their own societies through their own innovations. There is no telling how the world could be today had people been allowed to innovate outside the box, rather than within this one globalized system. A lot of our best innovations came from humble origins and from people who were ostracized from society. Had that 3rd world farmer been allowed to spend his free time thinking over a few ideas, rather than working in a Nike factory making cheap shoes for Americans, who knows where we would be today?

There are many socialists who believe that hoarding knowledge is wrong. They believe that knowledge should be shared at any costs. They argue that while perhaps the 3rd world has lost some of its individual freedoms, the acquisition of knowledge from these globalists moving in far outweighs any other consideration. Perhaps hoarding knowledge and technology is wrong, or maybe it isn't? Perhaps there is something to be said in learning the knowledge and technology by yourselves. Consider evolving on your own terms within your own society, not on the terms of another.

Myth 5: Globalization is necessary to "properly" educate the world: Be weary of anyone who claims how to "properly" educate anyone. The argument here, much like myth number 4, is that globalization shares greater knowledge amongst the world, therefore people are better and more "properly" educated. How so? That depends on what you consider to be education. I would argue globalization harms the process for the individual to be educated by his own means and by his own rights. The centralized mass education system denies the individual to learn best on his/her own terms and within his/her own abilities. Globalization systematically standardizes education across the globe, denying people choices in how to pursue one's education. Another big problem with the standardized globalized education system, is what is considered "proper" education is left squarely in the values and perceptions of the given education administrators. The danger is that numerous intelligent and capable people will be left behind, because here is yet another example of globalization's most heinous crime: Not respecting the fact that we are indeed different.

Myth 6: Globalization lowers racism and sexism. Increases tolerance for other cultures: I wonder if a Palestinian, Iraqi, Iranian, or Afghani would share a similar opinion because they as a culture refused to embrace the globalist train wreck. Globalization does just the opposite. Globalization is a hegemony system, as such, individual differences are shunned in the name of unification. The world is becoming more and more homogenized. Languages are dying. Our schools are producing more and more of the same (rational left-brain type regurgitators who spit out facts). I doubt many of our great innovators of the past would survive in today's world. Albert Einstein would never be heard today, because he's just a patent clerk without a Master's degree. Corporations are taking over the world at an alarming rate. One of the main business models of the corporation is to bring familiarity to the customer. People are comfortable knowing that whether they shop at a McDonald's in Canada, the US, Germany, China, etc. it will be mostly the same. The problem with that model is diversity is killed, and with it innovation and individual culture. Our Hollywood movies may spew propaganda how unification is a wonderful thing, I on the other hand, don't see any inherit value in trying to make everyone artificially equal. I don’t want to be the same as everyone else. I don’t wish it, I like who I am, although I am saddened that society refuses to accept it and as consequence subjects me to unjustified hardship.

Myth 7: Globalization is needed to guard against tyrants who are oppressing their own people: China has certainly been beefed up since the inception of modern day globalization. The apartheid in South Africa only ended the day the globalists decided to move out and stop supporting the oppressive regime. How can globalization be used to safeguard tyranny when it's run by tyrants? The tyrants you see advertised in the media are middlemen. The king men who run the system decide which middlemen will rise and fall based upon their own self-interests. Globalization is amoral. When it's beneficial for the system to support a tyrant killing innocent people, that's the agenda. When it isn't beneficial to support a tyrant killing innocent people, the tyrant will be disposed.

Myth 8: In the end, we have to accept globalization anyway. Nation states are evil. We're all human and should live under a single nation: Why? Seriously, I'm asking why many people feel that 100, 200, 500, 1000 years from now humanity must be unified under a single banner? Because some interesting science fiction movies portray that in a positive light? My hope is that in the future humans can work together, while at the same time have valid choices where/how to live, work, and play. If it's all the same, and this sameness ill-suits a certain person, what is that person to do? Only through choices can humanity have freedom, and only through freedom can we hope to progress as a species. Globalization, forcing everyone down the path of sameness, is thus evil.

So How Does Globalization Punish Individual Success?

Now that we've dispelled some of the myths promoted by leading academics regarding globalization, I'll go back to the main thesis: That globalization does punish individual success.

We see cases of this happening on a daily basis. The globalists call this capitalism. I have to question how any system that punishes successful people by making them "too expensive to be employed," and then shipping off their jobs to someone who doesn't even know how to use a computer, can be called capitalism. What happens under globalization is successful, industrial, and educated countries eventually have a currency that is "too expensive." The results are that they lose their jobs for simply being successful and propping up their nation's economy. Their jobs and subsequent economies are then moved to a nation where its currency is cheaper. The currency is cheaper because the people are less successful, less educated, and less industrious. Eventually, because these people now have jobs, they have incentives to become more successful, better educated, and industrious. The result is much like the nation before them, they will price themselves out of the market and their jobs may be moved to another nation. Ironically enough, it may be the same nation they previously took the jobs from because that nation has now become poor due to having no jobs and it's currency now subsequently devalued. Do you see where I'm going with this? Economic globalization is causing us to spin our wheels. It's a constant quest to always discover the cheapest wages. In other words, failure is being sought out, not success. If this system of punishing economic nation success and rewarding failure continues, the end result is we'll have full-blown communism. Where everyone is equally poor but a few top 1% that are extraordinarily rich. Indeed, it's obvious to any enlightened individual that is exactly where we're heading . . .

Your Perspective of Globalization Punishing Individual Success Seems To Come From A Worker Perspective, But What About Entrepreneurs?

Anyone who has the belief that globalization is of great benefit to entrepreneurs has obviously never tried to start a business. Such a person is quite often a smug individual, an overeducated and a glorified employee in an analyst position of a major institution. There are but a few winners with globalization, and I can assure you, it's not the individual entrepreneur. The biggest winners are corporate CEO's. The majority of whom is nothing more than glorified employees, much like the pundit analyst I mentioned. The majority of CEO's haven't founded the companies they run. They have contributed nothing entrepreneurial to society. All they have done is manage an existing company, which they have inherited under a lucrative salary, and have hired a few individuals that have upgraded the existing technology over a period of time. Very little of significant innovation has come from CEO's over the past decade. Like all general trends, there are notable exceptions, but they're exceptions rather than rule.

On the other hand, anyone trying to start a business from ground zero is entering an incredibly hostile environment to start a business. This is a true entrepreneur, and the fact of the matter is there is a different set of rules that he/she must abide by than the corporations. The rules favour one party over another, want to take a guess who benefits?

Conclusion

Globalization is undemocratic, opposes individual freedom, and must be fought. Say NO to globalization, a system of financial despotism.

-Donovan D. Westhaver

Comments 6 comments

Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago

Great job! I have a friend who has an article of mine he's presently editing. I will be sure to link to yours since it will help with my thesis.


dude1 5 years ago

An excellent article that i will be printing out and passing around . great work :)


dede  5 years ago

i think is a good peace

but 2many harsh words is being used

ur opinion seems radical

and unfortunately i can't use much 4 my essay... cuz is ur point of view and not backed up by academic writters.


DonDWest profile image

DonDWest 5 years ago from Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Author

dede, it's doubtful you'll find much of any information from "academic writers" because such thought processes are banned from academia. There are a few lesser known economists who match my views if you need citations from a person with a degree, but none of them have any academic backgrounds.


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

Don, my full support for every line of your essay, but not for the conclusion. Globalization is neither good nor evil. It is simply happening.

I was an entrepeneur in the sense you mensioned. And - yes, i can fully agree with you. If you don´t have enough momentum to roll out into the world, you better leave it to those who have.

I had to sell a large part of my business to a small, but global player, because i didn´t have enough power to go global. Tiny hidden champions get blown away in global storms, so they better take cover in larger global corporations.

Any CEO of a company that has the potential to go global, should be fired if he does not build a global strategy. So please don´t blame the (not so) poor CEOs.

Globalization is not new, it is as old as written records exist. Back in ancient days, the world was smaller, more limited, but it was global in the sense that everyone knew there was something more outside of his homeplace.

In an ancient village on a lake, developing trade with the opposite lake shore may have been a global connection. And guess how many villagers were absolutely convinced that trade with the opposite lake shore was bad.


guest 3 years ago

I didn't take the time to read the rest of the article, cuz this topic could fill volumes, but your first premise is incredibly against human nature and impossible to prove. Go read "The Leviathan" or Aristotle's "Politics" and you'll understand why we have government. What does a world without interdependency look like? It is exactly interdependancy that gives people the ability to have peace, granted it also increasingly allows for conflict on a massive scale. But what if there was one government? O wait, there is, and the world has been pretty peaceful since its creation.

Nonetheless, glad to see you are thinking about important issues!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working