The concept of globalization today is unavoidable, regardless of the aspect of our lives in question. As our lives are exposed to global influences in various ways, especially through the media and the economy, it is no wonder that many people voice their opinions on this topic – some defend it unreservedly as an inevitable process, while others ruthlessly attack it. Both sides believe they have undeniable arguments for their stance.
In order to better understand the processes of globalization, it is necessary to consider them not only in their economic, but also in their historical and philosophical context. Only then can we comprehend not only the causes of these processes, but also their impact on the future.
From the many definitions of globalization, we will choose the one provided by the (global) online encyclopedia – Wikipedia:
Globalization is the process of removing barriers to the movement of goods, capital, people, and ideas in today’s world, and the ideology that accompanies this process.
Globalization is primarily an economic and economy-driven process. For There is a dream of the doctrine of a free market as the only mechanism that governs the economy and human society as a whole. All social relations are reduced to the production, exchange, trade, and consumption of goods. The imposition of this doctrine on the whole world, in order to turn it into an open market without restrictions, is the essence of the globalization process as we know it today.
Opponents of globalization criticize it for reducing all social life to bare market relations and speak of the mentality of homo oeconomicus, for whom material gain is the primary motivation and consumption the sole life goal. This materialistic ideology elevates consumer needs to the position of the main driver of development. At the cultural level, they criticize its banality; instead of focusing on great artistic and scientific achievements, mass media are flooded with “news” from the lives of various “stars” and “celebrities”.
Supporters of globalization emphasize the advantages of global communication, such as the possibility of getting to know and connect with different cultures. The interaction of members of different nations who are spatially and culturally distant from each other could serve as the foundation for peaceful coexistence through the development of awareness of diversity. It also enables the greatest minds around the world to unite in efforts for the benefit of humanity.
Critics of globalization argue that the positive aspects are only an incidental consequence of these processes, and by no means their intention.
History of globalization
Although we perceive the concept of globalization as very modern, its beginnings date back to the 19th century, and the ideology on which it is based originated in the 18th century. The economic and sociological theory of this process emerged in Great Britain.
Due to its position as a colonial power, Great Britain was among the first to take advantage of the benefits of mass trade across its borders and the availability of cheap resources from its colonies. It was also a leader in imposing the theoretical foundation of this system, the doctrine of the “invisible hand” of the market, as a perfect regulatory mechanism. According to this theory, which has become a dogma among its advocates, supply and demand are always in equilibrium in the long run, unless they are disrupted by state interventions. This doctrine is sometimes referred to as laissez-faire, meaning letting the market do its thing without government interference.
Although proponents of market liberalization today insist on deregulation in order for the market to function freely, history tells us that the establishment of a free market in England was a planned and regulated process, made possible only through the enactment of numerous laws and under the strict supervision of the state. The establishment of a free market was a project, not a natural process of economic development.
Furthermore, in order for economic liberalism to rise and be accepted on a global scale, it was not enough to have just these theoretical foundations; a philosophical-ideological framework and a technological basis were also necessary. The most deserving in establishing the philosophical framework of liberalism is the French philosopher of the Enlightenment, René Descartes – the ideological. The turning point was the “era of rationality”. Everything that was beyond the reach of rational mind was deemed irrelevant, and the worldview was reduced to mechanistic laws, devoid of any “transrational” meaning.
The technological foundation was represented by the industrial revolution that started with the use of steam engines.
19th century
Adam Smith believed that the development of the market would inevitably lead to “trickling down”, meaning that the increase in wealth among the upper classes would gradually lead to improvements in the standards of those who work for them. However, the reality of the first century of market economy proved him wrong. The consequences came swiftly in England at that time. The ideal free market functioned from 1870 until the Great Depression in 1929. The buying and selling of labor as a commodity caused peasants to migrate to the cities, and without any state protection, the majority of the urban population was reduced to a starving mass crammed into cramped rooms without basic hygiene conditions. Data shows that During the second half of the 19th century, the life expectancy of the inhabitants of Great Britain was shortened due to poor living conditions.
It was only David Ricardo, another classical economist and advocate of free market, and Thomas Malthus who showed that production can surpass consumption because the majority of the population cannot keep up with the increasing production due to low incomes.
On the other hand, Great Britain took advantage of its early industrialization and market development to become the leading global economic power during the 19th century. It expanded its trade to all continents, with half of the world trade being in its hands. Thus, globalization at its inception was primarily trade-oriented, while production remained on the island.
Although other European countries also developed market economies, abandoning older doctrines, nowhere else apart from Great Britain and later the United States did a market emerge that was left to itself, i.e., deregulated or free market. namely, other countries States retained control over the mechanisms of decision-making in international trade and capital flows. Thus, only Great Britain and the United States became market societies, while other countries developed market economies. Although their economic development was not as dynamic as that of England or the United States, it was not as detrimental to the social security of the population.
20th century
Globalization processes during the first years of the 20th century advanced to such an extent that they finally sparked a reaction – one after another, states began imposing high protective tariffs and restricting the entry of foreign capital, thus entering a kind of trade war. Political tensions escalated to the point that in 1914, they culminated in the First World War, when all international trade came to a halt.
During the interwar period, global trade did not reach its previous volume, and the economies of most countries, exhausted by war and the instability of the world market, entered the Great Depression. Various initiatives began to emerge aimed at reviving economies and promoting international cooperation. welfare state, “state of well-being”. One of the most important meetings to shape the post-war world took place in 1944 in Bretton Woods, USA. At that meeting, the Allied presidents and finance ministers established a new system of rules and institutions to prevent trade wars, resulting in the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now part of the World Bank).
The welfare state of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s imposed necessary restrictions on the market in terms of better income distribution, which were directed towards various public spending funds such as education, healthcare, p/information security, support for the unemployed, etc. It brought real prosperity to the citizens of the Western world, but social benefits and tax burdens exceeded the state’s actual capabilities. In addition, a portion of the citizens developed clientelism, passivity, as one could live decently without work, relying on social assistance. Such a situation called for certain reforms, but the solution offered by neoliberal economists in the 80s was the worst and most cruel.
The new rise of the liberal market
In the mid-80s, conservative forces led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took the stage in Great Britain and the United States. Their starting point was the old ideology that had been surpassed through the tragedies of world wars – the ideology of a completely free, deregulated market. The most prominent advocate of this new liberalism was the highly influential economist Milton Friedman from the University of Chicago. The ideology of Victorian England – that the individual is solely responsible – came alive again. for their well-being and that the community owes him nothing, just as he owes nothing to the community.
The final phase
During the 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, and the failure of the socialist system, capitalism became the widely accepted norm, and modern globalization gained momentum. Up to this day, this process continues with new forms of liberalization, the latest and most dangerous of which, according to experts, is the liberalization of capital markets enabled by new information and communication technologies.
The true danger of free market globalization lies in its mobility and instability. New technologies allow for quick capital investment in a country, but also for its withdrawal at the same speed in order to be invested in a more profitable market on the other side of the world – leaving companies and entire nations facing collapse due to sudden loss of capital.
Antiglobalists
The last decade of the previous century and the beginning of the new millennium also brought about the first significant reaction to market globalization. Globalization can be characterized as the empowerment of still weak but increasingly numerous antiglobalist movements. Thanks to them, the world has become aware of child slave labor in Asia, Africa, and South America, as well as the terrible working conditions in Third World manufacturing plants, all so that producers of well-known global brands can achieve their enormous profits.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the free market is just a theory that cannot be applied worldwide. The so-called free market essentially only works in developed Anglo-Saxon countries, while the rest of the world struggles under a new form of colonialism with diminishing prospects of gaining freedom from this new form of slavery. Developed economic powers, through organizations like the IMF and World Bank, manage to eliminate barriers to their business in underdeveloped countries, but they maintain protective measures for their own economies (such as tariffs and incentives), which prevent the poor from exporting their goods. The products of the poor are not competitive because they do not have equal conditions. There is no industrial development, nor developed institutions necessary for it. Furthermore, global corporations have drastically lowered the prices of basic export products from underdeveloped countries, such as coffee, bananas, and sugar, making basic nutrition difficult for the population, not to mention education and healthcare.
Underdeveloped countries are burdened with debt, and international loans usually only benefit their corrupt oligarchies. Power is only on one side, and in current globalization conditions, the rich become even richer, and the poor become even poorer. The irony is that despite international aid, the number of hungry people and those dying from hunger is rapidly increasing.
Citizens of developed countries are not exempt from the negative consequences of globalization – social division is growing, income disparities are greater than ever, unemployment, lack of education, and poor healthcare threaten a larger portion of the population in the US, UK, and other EU countries. Workers are faced with precarious job conditions. There are widespread layoffs due to the fact that in the global economy, large corporations are outsourcing their production to underdeveloped countries that can offer them much more favorable business conditions and much cheaper labor.
Transition countries, which are transitioning from a planned to a market economy, are particularly vulnerable because they have to follow the dictates of international institutions, which often work to the detriment of their citizens.
PERSPECTIVES OF GLOBALIZATION
Due to the level of development reached in communication technology and transportation, globalization is inevitable. Today, no one would willingly give up the internet or the ability to travel from one end of the world to the other in just a few hours by plane.
However, with globalization as a multidimensional process that encompasses the economy, politics, and culture, humanity has embarked on another historical experiment. It is becoming increasingly clear that the whole process is based on wrong foundations, namely, it is left in the hands of large multinational corporations and politicians who are primarily concerned with their own profit rather than the well-being of the people. The only thing on their mind is their own interest, which they absolutely do not want to jeopardize. The rhythm of globalization is driven by the wealthy, not the wise and moral.
Economists, philosophers, scientists, and activists worldwide are currently trying to figure out how to reduce the negative effects of economic globalization. However, it still eludes us that for more humane relations in the world, globalization should primarily be a process of increasing empathy for other people and cultures, a process of developing a sense of unity in diversity and coexistence, which arises from awareness of common roots and destiny. From a philosophical perspective, only on such foundations is globalization sustainable and lasting