Globalisation for Whom?

Can you imagine a globalisation that would work for the 99%? Where need is put before greed? And institutions work to find global solutions to global problems? I’ll be honest, I can’t and that’s because of the globalisation we have right now.

Let’s look at what has been globalised to date: tax avoidance is global and for this reason we’re told nothing can be done about it; brands and entertainment like Simon Cowell’s TV formats and Premier League football have gone global, homogenising cultural consumption the world over; capital is freer to cross borders than humans seeking refuge from conflict; toxic financial products were so ubiquitous that problems in the US mortgage sector spelled disaster for the entire world economy.

Now here are a few things that haven’t been globalised: human rights; democracy; equality; free access to healthcare and a healthy diet; workers’ rights; the right to human dignity; responsibility to our planet and its future inhabitants. The pattern is obvious: the current settlement suits the 1% as you’d expect, because they were its architects. The poorest people on the planet are already bearing the brunt of global problems in the form of climate change, drug and human trafficking, failed states and economic collapse. Meanwhile the poor and middle classes of richer nations are being made to cover the costs accrued by a small minority of market gamblers and negligent political and media elites through tax-payer bailouts and reduced services.

In truth, the age of globalisation has been forged in the image of neoliberalism to the extent that the two are now seen as indivisible. The entire institutional apparatus that we have come to associate with globalisation is as committed to the Washington Consensus as the radical governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Quoted by politicians as if they were impartial observers, the IMF, World Bank, OECD and ‘Big Three’ credit-rating agencies are in fact there to enforce an element of doctrinal obedience.

I argued in these pages previously that “There is no alternative” is a disingenuous argument because politicians make choices with every budget and manifesto, and change is the only constant in life. The crucial problem is not only the architecture of the global economy but also the corporate media and, as a result, mainstream culture and opinion are still invested in the old, failed system.

This means that even if a nation-state were to democratically elect a government that stood on a platform of radical change, if that proposed change was outside of the agreed parameters of the existing consensus you would see in a very short space of time the full force of neoliberal globalisation swing into action. There would be credit-rating downgrades from the ‘objective’ agencies who missed the Enron and sub-prime scandals, a hysterical frenzy among the corporate media, veiled threats from the IMF and OECD and, quite possibly, stampeding capital flight. Finally, depending on the extent of the country’s departure from the consensus, there would be hostility from the other neoliberal countries.

Just as the spooked monarchs of Europe turned on revolutionary France, so the governments of the eurozone could not allow the Greek people a referendum over their economic fate.

When Lehman Brothers fell in 2008, many on the left wondered whether it was a moment of paradigm shift, if the Ponzi scheme of macroeconomic models had been hoist by its own petard. Instead, we watched in horror as the zombie economics staggered on, with ideological contortions allowing socialism to be introduced for the financial sector while their debt was shifted onto governments and then the people. Everything that has happened since the crash would suggest that a continuation of the status quo is untenable, but those within existing institutions and power elites will not be the ones to turn the ship around.

And so enter globalisation 2.0, in the form of globalised communications, activism and dissent. Whilst every national uprising in the last two years has had different local causes and manifestations, they share certain characteristics: a movement dominated by youth who are mobile and technologically savvy; an affinity for direct democracy; a repudiation of oligarchy and a shared sense that this is their time, driven by a fear that there might not be one for their children.

The busy, swarm-like movements from Tahrir Square to Wall Street to here at St Paul’s are in direct contrast to the systems they oppose; as Paul Mason terms it, “the network defeats the hierarchy”. Mason writes in his new book Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere, “Once information networks become social, the implications become massive: truth can now travel faster than lies, and all propaganda becomes instantly flammable. Sure, you can try to insert spin, but the instantly networked consciousness of millions of people will set it right. They act like white blood cells against infection so that ultimately the truth, or something close to it, persists much longer than disinformation.”

It may take another crash precipitated by the eurozone crisis or the zombie banking system before a critical mass of people acknowledge the need for a new model of globalisation that benefits the majority. But perhaps globalisation 2.0 can change the world before it comes to that. For all of us who already recognise the neoliberal globalisation for what it is, it is time for us to wake our countries up and Occupy!

By Michael Richmond