Monday , November 30 2020
Home / business / Globalization with a human face

Globalization with a human face

Глобализация с человеческим лицом

Bourgeois ideologists, and today, for objective reasons, the vast majority, do not cease to convince employees in the “benefits” of capitalism, justifying all his faults a certain “imbalance”, “the unfinished reform”, “government” (substitute your specific country). They are asking people to be patient, to wait for the next crisis, to trust the market or the new Cabinet that it will rise, captivating star of happiness, and everyone will be rich and happy.

Глобализация с человеческим лицом

A lot of hope, sometimes well paid, bourgeois ideologists have laid on globalization as a panacea for all the evils of capitalism.

“I continue to believe that globalization, i.e. the elimination of barriers to free trade and closer integration of national economies, can be a force for good, and that it contains so much potential for development, which can improve the lives of all the inhabitants of the Earth, including those who are poor”.
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

It is blissful who believes! This is Joseph Eugene Stiglitz is an American economist neokeynesians, winner of the Nobel prize in Economics. From the perspective of neokantians, i.e. followers of Keynes, the supporters of the necessary state regulation of the market economy, Stiglitz trying to prove in his work “Globalization: Disturbing tendencies” that capitalism with a human face possible. Globalization, government regulation and transparency of information, these are the three pillars that can change the lives of billions of employees around the world for the better. As the joke goes, it remains only to persuade Rothschild!

“I’m not stupid enough to believe that the market by itself will solve all social problems. Inequality, unemployment, environmental pollution insurmountable without the active participation of the state.”
– D. J. Stiglitz (2002), Wikipedia.

The work of the Nobel prize in Economics, man by his own assertion not stupid, declares Marxism is untenable. In confirmation of his hypothesis, he cites the example of the collapse of the Soviet Union:

“Adam Smith suggested that one of the possible models, spoke in favor of the market mechanism. Karl Marx, seeing clearly the negative effects of capitalism on workers in his time, offered an alternative model. Despite many well proven disadvantages, Marxian model had a huge impact, especially in developing countries, where, apparently, capitalism has failed to live up to its promise. But the collapse of the Soviet Empire made the weakness of this model is obvious enough. After this collapse and transition of the global economy under the hegemony of the United States, the market model has prevailed”.
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

Thus, having rejected socialism and communism as alternative to capitalism aside, was adopted by Stiglitz in his book to castigate the free market, on what light is. The benefit of a free market, i.e. capitalism, is full of flaws that Stiglitz had time to notice during its long economic life. But his work is interesting not only because, as Stiglitz spits into the well of private property, from which he drinks, and information on the work of international institutions, the IMF and the world Bank (IBRD), “responsible” for globalization.

“The application of mistaken economic theories would not be such a problem if it leaves the arena of first colonialism and then communism, the IMF and the world Bank has not received the opportunity to expand the scope of its competence. Today these institutions are among the dominant players in the global economy. The country, not only seeking their help but also seeking to get “label approval” to have the best access to international capital markets, forced to follow their
economic requirements: the requirements that reflect free-market ideology and the theory of these institutions. The result for many people has been poverty and for many countries social and political chaos”.
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

On the work of international institutions Stiglitz knows firsthand. In 1993-1995 he was a part of the Economic Council under the President of the United States Clinton. In 1995-1997 he held the position of Chairman of the Council of economic advisers under the President of the United States. In 1997-2000 Vice-President and chief economist of the world Bank. With the development of these institutions Stiglitz connects the beginning of “managing” globalization, attempts to rebuild the world under one format.

“Those who demonize globalization too often overlook its benefits. However, supporters of globalization are even more bias. For them, globalization (which typically is associated with the triumphant capitalism, American style) is progress, developing countries must accept it if they want effective growth and poverty reduction. However, a large number of countries globalization has not brought the promised economic benefits”.
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

Thus, the globalization of “American style”, based on liberal ideology of the free market, engulfed the whole capitalist world. Since the book was written in the early 2000s, Russia and China Stiglitz calls countries not yet fully a market economy. China, according to Stiglitz, is also steadily moving to the market since the late 70-ies (Stiglitz held talks with Chinese leadership on the socialist change of course), but have not liberalized the capital markets. Because today four Chinese banks are in the top ten “ranking by Forbes of the biggest companies in the world 2015”, apparently with China, “all right.” Russia came to capitalism by Stiglitz terms “Bolshevik” pace – through shock therapy. And the market economy will come fully into its own only when usacanada stolen the property of the Russian oligarchs. Here we must pay tribute to our President Vladimir Putin, he is doing everything in this direction.

Stiglitz himself is quite aware in whose interest is the IMF, IBRD and WTO in detail, and writes about it in his work, but still obscures the essence:

“For all the problems of the IMF and other international institutions is the problem of governance: who decides what to do. The dominant role
in these institutes belongs to not just the rich industrial countries and their commercial and financial circles, and policies of these institutions,
naturally, reflects this. Selection of managers for these institutions symbolizes the problems, which they do, often
contributes to the violation of their functions. While almost all of the activities of the IMF and the world Bank today focuses on developing countries
(at least all their credit activities), their leadership consists of representatives of developed countries (according to the tradition and tacit agreement
the head of the IMF is always a European, while the world Bank is American). They are chosen behind closed doors, and in no case from this Chapter required experience in the developing world. The institutions are not representative from the point of view of the Nations they serve. There is also the problem of who speaks on behalf of the country. In IMF it is the Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors. In the WTO it is the trade Ministers. Each of these Ministers is closely associated with certain factions within their country.

Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors typically are closely tied with the financial community: they come from financial firms, and after a stay in the civil service go there.

These people see the world through the eyes of the financial community. And it is quite natural that the decisions of any Institute reflects the plans and interests of those who take them…

― policy of international economic institutions too often closely connected with commercial and financial interests of certain circles in the advanced industrial countries”.
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

Let’s help Mr. bourgeois Professor to spit out the gum from his mouth, and international institutions such as IMF, IBRD, WTO, NATO and even the UN represents the interests of the capitalists. Once we say it out loud, you’ll see how groundless are the arguments of Stiglitz about the challenge of globalization changes in the management of these institutions. Stiglitz proposes to make international institutions more international, i.e. to call not only the capitalists and their representatives from developed countries but from developing. As shown, and so it goes (China joined the elite club of financial powers of the world 30 November 2015 – the yuan has become the fifth reserve currency of the IMF), but if capitalists from developing countries not called to operate in these international institutions, they organize their: SCO, BRICS, New development Bank, the Asian Bank. Only kapitalisticheskogo institutions does not change.

Capitalists found a way and lead the world to reinforce existing class inequalities “forever”. Lenin wrote in 1916:

“Is it possible, however, to argue against the fact that the abstract “imagined” a new phase of capitalism after imperialism, namely, ultraimperialism? No. To think abstractly similar phase. Only in practice this means to become a opportunist, denies the sharp tasks of today in the name of dreams of mild future tasks. In theory this means not to rely on going in fact the development of, and arbitrarily put it in the name of these dreams. No doubt that the development is towards a single world trust, devouring all enterprises without exception and all States without exception. But the development towards this in such circumstances, such a tempo, with such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals — not only economic but also political, national, etc, etc, — certainly before the case goes to one world trust, to “ultraimperialism” world Union of national Finance capital, imperialism must inevitably explode, capitalism will turn into its opposite”.
V. I. Lenin, PSS, Vol. 27

The organizing Bureau of the Union of Communists is not the first time cites the words of Lenin, which dogmatists even read properly I can’t. Lenin in the Preface to the pamphlet speaks of Bukharin imperialism, as it is located on stage of capitalism, about the confrontation of different imperialismo (English, German, Russian, French, etc.) and contradictions characteristic of this stage of capitalism, which it cannot reach the world of the trust. But changed living conditions, and changed capitalism.

Lenin predicted that imperialism will burst and turn into its opposite, and so it was – in the war of imperialismo appeared Soviet Russia. She parried the first campaign of the imperialists to their territory, then the USSR repelled the second campaign of the imperialists. after the Second World war Pala colonial system of the world, formed the socialist camp. No one knows what would have become of the modern world, if not counter-revolutionary coup in the USSR in 1953.

We can state only the facts. Since 1953, the USSR was still a socialist. His leadership has chosen a course on capitalism in the early 90-ies after another of betrayal of the Communist in the Soviet Union collapsed. Thus “unsolvable” contradictions of the imperialists of the USA and the USSR was resolved very simply, capitalists agreed between themselves, avoiding a nuclear war, the world came under the control of international institutions and TNCs.

The brunt of the blow from the collapse of the USSR fell on the workers of the Union republics and neighbouring States. The blood from the effects of the offense continues to flow to this day.

Thus we are in the stage of imperialism, and in the stage of liberal globalism.

Liberal globalism is capitalism, characterized by the appearance of transnational corporations seeking to merge and the emergence of supranational structures seeking to eliminate national States.
– M. A. Sorkin, Priest’s stories, http://ledokol-ledokol.livejournal.com/139257.html

International institutions, organized after the second World war with the assistance of the USSR to maintain peace and prosperity, after the counterrevolution in the USSR in 1953, was useful to control the peace and prosperity of the capitalists.

• UN, 1945 headquarters new York, USA.
• IMF, 1947, as part of the Bretton woods system; the headquarters of Washington, USA.
• IBRD, 1946, as part of the Bretton woods system; the headquarters of Washington, USA.
• GATT 1947 (General agreement on tariffs and trade), the prototype of the WTO.
• WTO, 1995, headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.
• NATO, 1949, Brussels, Belgium.

Of course, nation-States, it seems, have not gone away. France and the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, Japan and the U.S., too (Canada, Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland and not talking). But do they not consist in international alliances (EU, NATO, etc.)? Don’t they use the services of international institutions (IMF, IBRD, EBRD)? As shown by the same practice on the example of anti-Russian sanctions, these countries are the United States and NATO. But for the US and NATO are transnational corporations – the beneficiaries of globalization.

“Globalization powerfully pushed by transnational corporations that move across borders not only capital and goods but also technology.”
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

Transnational corporations do not need borders and trade tariffs, multinational corporations don’t need obstacles in the form of national legislation, embargo and all the rest. TNCs generally have refused to join the States, if not the class of employees that need to keep in check. The solution to all problems for TNCs could become a world government, world state – the repressive apparatus of the capitalist class, spreading its tentacles on all the inhabitants of the Earth. Stiglitz also complains about the omission in his book.

“Today, together with a further reduction in transport and communication costs and the reduction of artificial barriers to the free flow of goods, services and capital (though still serious barriers to the free flow of labor force) we observe a process of “globalization” analogous to the earlier processes, which were formed by the national economy. Sorry, we have no world government responsible for the peoples of all countries to control the process of globalization in ways that are comparable to those of the national government directed the processes of formation of Nations. Instead we have a system that can be called global governance without global government, one in which a handful of institutions ― world Bank, IMF, WTO ― and a bunch of players ― the Ministry of Finance, internal and foreign trade, closely connected with financial and commercial interests ― dominate the scene, but the vast majority affected by their decisions, remains almost mute”.
– D. J. Stiglitz, Globalization: Disturbing tendencies.

Let’s summarize the above. Humanity is on the next phase of historical development, when capitalism is to survive, has entered its next stage – the stage of liberal globalism, or simply globalism, whatever. Only the essence of capitalism remains the same – to maximize profits in the shortest period of time and the exploitation of man by man. In his new stage of capitalism seek to eliminate the last barriers to flows of goods and capital, services and labour, which are the national States. TNCs have outgrown the ceiling of the national monopolies, require a single global state, in order to perpetuate the established order of things.

The organizing Bureau of the Union of Communists does not know how difficult or easy it will be to fight “held on ultraimperialism”, a world government, but, as a hundred years ago Lenin said Kautsky, and we say to all conscious workers to postpone class struggle later, or to hope that capitalists will come to her senses, creating cheloveynik-state mean falling into opportunism. Conscientious employees you want to create in our country the Communist party. Then Russia has a chance to become again a socialist country, to survive the onslaught of liberal globalism and lead mankind to an alternative future to communism.

Kirill Polyakov

Check Also

Danish media called the main weapon of Russia in the Arctic

The Russian “super weapons” missiles “Dagger” – exceeds the service of NATO, the Alliance has …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *