Globalization And The Resistance Against It Sheikh Baten Globalization is, no doubt, the buzzword of the present time. The term is used to signify that something profound is happening, that is, the world is changing-new world economic, political and cultural order is emerging. The term is used in so many different contexts, by so many different people, for so many different purposes, that it is difficult to ascertain what is at stake in the globalization problematic, what function the term serves, and what effects it has for contemporary theory and politics. The multiplicity of senses includes concepts like the global interdependence of nations, the growth of a world system, accumulation on a world-scale, the global village and many other rooted in the more general notion that the accumulation of capital, trade and investment is no longer confined to the nation-state. In its most general sense "globalization" refers to the cross-national flows of goods, investments, production and technology. For many of the advocates of the globalization thesis these flows, both their scope and depth, have created a new world order, with its own institutions and configurations of power that have replaced the previous structures associated with the nation-state. Origin of the concept, proponents and opponents The word 'global' is too old, almost over 400 hundred years. But the common usage of the word 'globalization' did not begin until 1960. In general dictionaries it came out with the meanings as spherical, universal, worldwide etc. The concept staggered into academic circles but did not became significant until early or possibly mid 1980s. And after that it's use became widespread. Ronald Robertson was the first to use the word in the title of his article published in 1985. He is also the key figure in formalization and specification of the concept of globalization. Roberson's definition of globalization runs as follows: "Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole�. both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole." Of all classical theorists, the one most explicitly committed to a globalizing theory of modernization is Marx. Globalization caused an enormous increase in the power of the capitalist class because it opened up new markets for it. Indeed, the discovery of America and the navigation routes to Asia established a 'world-market' for modern industry. The bourgeoisie rushed into this opportunity with alacrity. This development is economic as well as cultural because it gives a cosmopolitan character not only to production but to consumption. Nor is this process restricted to Western Europe. The bourgeoisie draws even 'barbarian' nations into its 'civilization' using the 'heavy artillery' of cheap commodities to batter down 'all Chinese walls'. The bourgeoisie is, for Marx, recreating the world in its own image. It is important to notice that in Marx's formulation the territorial boundary remains. He recognizes the continuing existence of nation-state. There is, however,! a seed of destruction for this. In establishing itself as a world capitalist class the bourgeoisie also causes the world proletariat to coalesce in opposition. The rise of power of the proletariat will, he argues, destroy all bourgeois institutions including the nation-state. For his early theory of capitalist internationalization (focusing the transfer of capital, goods and technology over great distances of the globe) at about his time many theorists of globalization take their lead from Marx. For these authors, as capitalism expands across the globe it internationalizes the associated pattern of social relations known as class. Marx, of course, never raised the question whether a "globalized capitalism" i.e. with no more non-capitalism space to move into, would be viable. The reason was, he expected capitalism to be overthrown and replaced by another system long before its spatial limits had been reached. He did not asked the question, hence did not try to answer. It was left for his followers to wrestle with the later development. By contrast, the recent neoliberal proponents who popularized globalization-like William Grieder, David Korten, Thomas Friedman- directly assigned technology as the determining or autonomous factor in bringing about a radical shift in the structure of capitalism and revolutionizing the world order. In his One World, Ready or Not, William Grieder brings the message to us that "one world" is inevitable and it is upon us-whether we like it or not. It is the omni powerful technology that has characterized the global capital and a single world. His notion of global capitalism runs like this: Technology revolutionized the world order. It is a economic revolution. Every "economic revolution" always originate with the invention of a new power source-a machine that can do the work previously done by human toil but cheaper, faster and more effective. And in this respect, it is similar with the revolutions of the past--English industrial revolution in late seventies century a! nd the great wave of industrial revolution in nineteen centuries. But those involved only minor percentage of world population. The current revolutions is distinctive in size and scope. The microchips brought revolution in the information technology amplifying human intellect which has a unparallel consequences in the economy- and in all spheres of modern life.(Greider 1997 : 11-26) Greider's account appears to be more narrative than analytical: In the field of economy new technology speeds up migration of capital, encourages production to move to new locations that is easier (and cheaper) for enterprises. It makes labor more individualistic, sophisticated and flexible, decentralizes the decision-making ( management) and scatter the jobs in many distant places. Reliable computerized data has made the financial market more powerful by maximizing and monitoring the return on capital without regard to national identity and by discipline government or even entire regions of the globe, in its own way, if impediments is created to profitable enterprises. Thus, global capitalism pulled together numerous competing centers-New York, Tokyo, Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong-converging with each other and contesting for dominance. More importantly, millions of peasants finds scope to escape from poverty. Because shift of productive wealth reflected in the extraordinary growth rates of some developing countries. And culturally, unique converging traits are being discovered in the cultures of Confucianism, Buddhism and Islam. Truly profound consequence is ideological. Marxism is almost vanquished as an alternative system. Capitalism is triumphant. The ideological conflict that has preoccupied political imagination for 150 years , is ended. This is how, in Greider's view, the world has converged and become "one world" : To make a well-organized effort to the different positions/debates on globalization present some difficulties since there are no definitive or fixed line of contestations. Multiple conversations coexists with few real dialogues. Dominant ideological traditions--conservatism, liberalism or socialism--has not yet offered a comprehensive readings of or responses to the globalization. Just as some conservatives and socialists find common grounds in dismissing the significance of globalization. Accepting this, it is feasible to identify arguments , in broad stroke, between those who consider that contemporary globalization is a real and significant historical development-the globalists-and those who conceive it as a primarily ideological or mythical construction which has marginal explanatory value-the opponents or critics. However, we will certainly show the differences and diversities of views within each camp. The fundamental question, posed by the critics of globalization, is: what is the 'global' in the in globalization? Since, there is no clear geographical referents, how it is possible to distinguish the international or the transnational from the global , or, for that matter, processes of regionalization from processes of globalization? It is precisely because much of the literature on globalization fails to specify the spatial referents for the global that, so the opponents argue, the concept becomes meaningless as vehicle for understanding the contemporary world. The opponents contend that a more valid conceptualization of current trends is captured by the terms 'internationalization' -this is, growing links between essentially discrete national economies or societies-and 'regionalization' or 'triadization'-the geographical clustering of cross-border economic and social changes. This is an argument for the continuing primacy of territory, boarders, place! and national governments to the distribution and location of power, production and wealth in the contemporary world order. Yet a puzzle arises: namely, how to explain the disjuncture between the widespread discourse of globalization and the realities of a world in which, for the part , the routines of everyday lives are dominated by national and local circumstances? However, the solution to this methodological problem, for most of the analysts (critics) involves construction of an abstract or ideal-typical model of globalization and asses how far contemporary trends match up to it. Other critics seek to asses how far contemporary trends compare with what many economic historian have argued was the belle �poque of globalization, namely the period from 1890 to 1914. Instead of providing an insight into the forces shaping the contemporary world order, the concept of globalization, argue many opponents, performs a rather different function. In essence, the discourse of globalization is understood as a primarily ideological construction; a convenient myth which, in part , help justify and legitimize the neoliberal global project, that is, the creation of global free-market and consolidation of Anglo-American capitalism within the world's major economic regions. In this respect, the concept of globalization operates as a 'necessary myth', through which politicians and governments set discipline their citizens to meet the requirements of the global marketplace. It is thus, unsurprising that discussion of globalization became so widespread just at that juncture when the neoliberal project- the Washington consensus of deregulation, privatization, structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and limited government-consolidated its hold within key W! estern capitals and global institutions such as IMF. Frequently associated with this position is the Marxist perspective on globalization. In Marxist analysis, capitalism , as a social order, has a pathological expansionist logic, since to maintain profits capital constantly has to exploit new markets. To survive, national capitalism must continuously expand the geographical reach of capitalist social relations. The history of the modern world order is the history of Western capitalist powers dividing and redividing the world up into exclusive economic zones. Today, it is argued, imperialism has acquired a new form as formal empires have been replaced by new mechanism of multilateral control and surveillance, such as the G7 and World Bank. As such, the present epoch is described by many Marxists not in terms of globalization, but instead as a new mode of Western imperialism dominated by the needs and requirements of finance capital within the world's major capitalist sates. The globalist account rejects the assertion that the concept of globalization can be simply dismissed either as a purely ideological construction or a as a synonym for Western imperialism. While not denying that the discourse of globalization may well serve the interest of powerful social forces in the West , the globalist account also emphasizes that it reflects real structural changes in the scale of modern social organization. Although, globalists give differential emphasis to the material and cognitive/subjective aspects of globalization and consider economic globalization as one of the aspects of globalization. We will, however, consider economic globalization as fundamental since validity of globalization in economic arena will determine the status of other parts of the globalist thesis (cultural etc.) Therefore, we will give more emphasis on the debate that centers around the fundamental question : whether the present stage of capitalism represents a new epoch or is basically the continuation of the past or an amalgam of new developments Is Globalization a New Stage in the Contemporary World Capitalism? From the globalist point of view, Barbuck and Robonson systematically addressed the issue that capitalism, today, has entered into a new epoch. This epochal shift is the fourth one in the world history of capitalism. First came the age of discovery and conquest. Capitalism, emerging from its feudal cocoon in Europe, began its outward expansion, symbolized by Columbus's arrival in the America. This was the epoch of mercantilism and primitive accumulation, what Marx referred to as the "rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production." The second shift is the birth of industrial capitalism, the rise of the bourgeoisie, and forging of the nation state. This epoch spanned what Eric Hobsbawm in his seminal historical works calls the ages of revolution, capital, and empire. It is keynoted by the French revolution and the 18th-century manufacturing revolution in England. The third epoch starts around the turn of the 20th century with the rise of corporate ("monopoly") capitalism an! d financial industrial corporation, intensified wars among the imperial powers, and the emergence of a socialist alternative. This epochal change is exemplified by World War I and Bolshevik revolution, the "Age of Extremes," as Hobsbawm titles his history of the 20th century. Today we are in the early phases of the fourth epoch of capitalism. Referred to as globalization, it is highlighted technologically by the microchip and the computer-the "information age"-and politically by the collapse of 20th century attempts at socialism. The latter was most graphically signaled by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union shortly thereafter, and also by a lesser discussed event, the defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1990 elections, which symbolized the failure of whole generation of Third World national liberation movements to offer an alternative to world capitalism. However, to demonstrate the epochal shift in the current structure of capitalism the arguments mainly presented include the issues-- world trade, flow of capital, global ( transnational) formation of social classes and global division of labor etc. The proponents emphasizing on different points vary, as we have mentioned before that they range from neoliberal/globalist to postmodern left. There is a major current of dissenting voices on the left staking out the position that globalization is not a new epoch. These include some Marxists who insist that globalization is an illusion fostered by the ideologues and pundits of the established order . The basic dynamics of capitalism have not changed in any way--capitalism is still capitalism. The notion of epochal shift or fundamental change in the structure of capitalism has been denied as an exaggeration. In the contemporary issues of Monthly Review, Paul Sweezy and some other analysts took the position that nothing happened to characterize capitalism as globalization or something new. Putting capitalism in historical context, Sweezy observes that globalization is not a condition or a phenomenon. It is a process that has been going on for long time, in fact ever since capitalism came into the world as a viable form of society four or five centuries ago. Most of the critics, however, do not deny that there is some substance to the globalist thesis in the sense that there is clearly some changes occurred in the contemporary world capitalism. The sheer volume of cross-border flows, of products, people, capital and above all of money is impossible to dispute. The important issue, however, turns on the meaning of these flows. In order to make a point in support of globalization thesis, as Linda Weiss most convincingly posed the questions, one would expect to find evidence indicating that the changes in question conformed to at least three criteria: (1) novelty-is it unusual or without parallel, thus suggesting secular growth rather than oscillation? ( 2) magnitude-how substantial is it in size? and (3) distribution-to what extent is it world-wide in scope? The pattern of world economy is at best international-although some analysts consider the trend as intra-regional. They argue that intra-European trade now accounts for som! e 62 per cent of its total export trade. Intra-regional trade within the American region-the US , Canada and Mexico-increased between 1980 and 1992 from 68 per cent to 79 per cent of total US-Japan and US-EU trade. Intra-regional trade has also become the dominant trend in Asia-China, ASEAN, Japan and the NICS-as the region has enhanced its importance as export market and production site for Japan and the NICs. Intra-Asian trade in the period 1986-92 rose from 32.4 to 47.7 per cent of total exports, thus reversing the traditional dominance of trade with the US. A similar story can be told for investment. Globalsits, however, do not see that the trend of regionalism in world economy contradict the process of globalization since the contemporary growth of regionalism has not produced any sharp division of the world into competing blocs . On the contrary, it has largely facilitated and encouraged economic globalization since it offers a mechanism national economies can engage more strategically with the global markets. Now, whether a certain process is global or regional or international is a problematic both methodological and ideological as we mentioned earlier. However, the common tenets of the globalists is that the technology is the determining factor in the globalized capitalism and its inevitability. As Friedman informs us that the defining economist of the cold war period were Karl Marx and John Keynes, who each in his own way wanted to tame capitalism, the defining economist of the globalization is Intel chairman Andy Grove who wanted to unleash capitalism. And the unleashing is certainly done by the forces of technologies: computerization, miniaturization, digitalization, satellite communication, fiber optics and the Internet. Today's globalization system is symbolized by World Wide Web. To affirm the inevitability of technology-driven globalization, he with a tone of irony, comments: " I think it's a good thing that the sun comes up every morning. It does more good than harm. But even if I didn't much care about dawn there isn't much I could do about it. I didn't start globalization, I can't stop it�." Similar is the vie! w, we mentioned earlier, expressed by Grieder that machine is the subject that brought global capitalism and imposed "one world" before us. Interestingly, there are those on the left who have the similar views of placing technology over the forces of social classes in the dynamics of contemporary capitalism. Critics from socialist perspective , without denying the contemporary change, explain current capitalist development in terms of what is pin pointed by Ellen Meiksins Wood " the constant technological changes driven by the pressures of competition and profit-maximization, the constant recomposition of capital and labor and the class relation between them." We have seen that Marxists emphasize that capitalism has always been a global system, even if the particular ways the world economy affects workers in particular places changes over time. They argue, if we see the present in long perspective of economic history the world's political economy is not more globalized than it was a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. The dynamics of capitalism has not changed. This view has been criticized by the leftists with globalist view in that if we break capitalism down into its most fundamental characteristics-the exploitation of labor by capital, commodity production, and the continued expansion of capitalism-then, yes, nothing has changed. However, to take this view one could argue that nothing has changed since Columbus, or perhaps since the industrial revolution, if one defines the earlier period as mercantile capitalism. There is no doubt that " capitalism is capitalism is capitalism, but the failure to distinguish between its different avatars freezes us in modes and forms of struggle which effete and ineffectual and blinds us to the revolutionary possibilities opened up by information technology" The evidence presented in favor of the above argument form the left with globalsit views overlap with those of the global neoliberalists as we have already mentioned. The position of "global left" as summarized by Sivanandan makes the point clear: The new technologies have inevitably given rise to a new kind of capitalist system, with fragmented workers stretched across world in "global assembly lines" ; created "international bourgeoisie " and freely mobile capital that can "walk any part of the world where labor is cheap" bypassing the nation-state and leaving in its wake an essentially powerless working class. Wood seriously opposes the view that sum up these changes of current capitalism under the rubric of globalization. To her, the term globalization is misleading, it does not represent the reality of the historical moment. It brings heaviest ideological burden to the neck of the left today. In the current concept of globalization left joints with right-in an unprecedented historical alliance-and accept that "There Is No Alternative" to capitalism. It serves as the excuse of complete defeatism, and abandonment any kind of anticapitalist project. It is true, a section of left, or former revolutionary left who feel overwhelmed by the seeming power of global capital has surrendered the possibility of radical alternative. They believe it is pragmatic for the left to accept " the logic of the market" and find space in global neoliberalism, or market socialism etc. Some on the left believe that to accept the changes and the effect of globalization is not necessarily defeatist. To accept broader transnational perspective of new global economy and challenge the capital from such a broader platform is more pragmatic. Ignoring this reality is rather misguidance and failure. Socialists, we have seen, doesn't deny the significant changes in the current world capitalism but they raise strong objection to consider that change a 'qualitative leap' as contained in the concept of globalization. However, now the question comes to the forefront-if globalization is the inherent character of capital then, is contemporary globalism different from the past? James Petras holds: the answer is yes in quantitative terms, no in terms of the structures and units of analysis that define the process." Crisis in and Resistance against Globalization Globalization, especially when regarded as the key concept for understanding contemporary trends, is often seen as a reality that displaced nation-state , imperialism and class struggle. In this sense, it has became an all-encompassing social force. For establishment pundits like Thomas Friedman, globalization is new technological-economic system based in the microchip and rules by an "electronic" herd of financial investors and multinational corporations, sweeping everything that came before it. In this view, globalization is the end of history in which all countries and economies are linked together through the capitalist market. And not only is the nation-state thought to have been displaced economically, but national struggle is considered largely ineffective. This is because market, democracy and prosperity will work together to pun an end to conflicts. Critics consider it as the tunnel vision of history in which all events destined to a particular contemporary outcome. The globalization process is a highly contradictory phenomenon. As multinational corporations grow overseas, they absorb a growing proportions of local resources while the fiscal bases to sustain the state that supports the multinationals decline. The result is an increase in taxes on wage/salaried workers relative to multinational corporations and deeper social cuts to finance the export economy. Hence, globalization is accompanied by domestic decay. The global reality today is very distant from the claims of the globalists. Inequality and polarization is the ascending trend. The social conditions on the eve of 20th century are, reversing to the 19th century. The income gap between the fifth of the world's people living in the richest courtiers and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960. In the nineteent! h century, too, inequality grew rapidly in the last three decades, the era of rapid global integration: the income gap between the top and bottom countries increased from 3 to 1 in 1820 to 7 to 1 in 1870 and 11 to 1 in 1913. In the US over 60 million have no or inadequate health care and over ten million children are not covered. Job insecurity increases as managers assume absolute power to hire, fire and subcontract part-time and temporary work . Impoverished families fare forced to work at below subsistence minimum wage jobs or go hungry. More workers work longer hours today than they did 30 years ago. Retirement age is reaching nearly 70 years old. Pension plans are no longer provided by employers. Prison-labor is employed by private employers for private gain. The number of children in orphanage is growing, as is the number of children living in poverty. The future for most of the young generation looks insecure and fearful both in Europe and North America. To deny this reality and project a rosy future is the essence of 'globalony'. On the other hand, the rosy future of globalization is for a specific group of capitalist operating at the center of globalism-the investment bankers and brokers. They move to the forefront of the US's richest companies. Goldman Sachs group, Wall Street's biggest private partnership, will probably earn close to three billion in 1997. In 1975 brokerage and investment banking firms earned $4.8 billion; by 1994 annual profits had grown to $ 69.5 billion. In comparison, the biggest and most successful high-tech firm, Microsoft, after tax profits were $2.2 billion. Clearly globalism is the wave of the future for speculators and financiers, but it would be the height of impertinence to confuse with the rest of the humanity. A similar process is occurring in the Third World countries. Penetration of capital is accompanied by unemployment, poverty and crime. By the early 1990s, 15 out of the so-called developing countries had steadily declined in income growth, with so! me the 'economic miracle' cases-Nigeria, Argentina and Venezuela - having their gross domestic product drop by double digits. As opposed to egalitarian world, world inequality rather reached to a new dimension. As David Korten, former proponent now turned critic of global capitalist development, has observed-"�.the great majority of the benefits of global economic growth gone not to the poor but to those who already have more than they need often far more. Accordingly to the 1997 UNDP Human Development Report, in 1960 the share of global income enjoyed by the wealthiest 20 percent of the world's people was thirty times the amount shared by the poorest 20 percent. The ratio more than doubled during the thirty years of official development efforts. It reached sixty to one in 1991 and rose to seventy-eight to one in 1994. The more successful capitalism becomes in the consolidation of its triumph �the faster the gap grows." Global integration goes hand in hand with environmental degradation and endangering human life. The process of deforestation is in order in many of the Third World courtiers leading to the increasing soil erosion, soil depletion, falling water tables, and more frequent flood and draught. In most South Asian countries, for example, the remaining forest are being logged rapidly by transnational corporations. One observer portrays: "As country after country is logged out, the loggers simply move elsewhere. In Southeast Asia loggers move to New Guinea, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia, the last countries that are still forested-and, significantly, those that have remained outside the orbit of the world trading system. At the current rate of forest destruction, these countries will be deforested within next decade. Already, Mitsubishi and Weyerhaeuser are moving to Siberia-the last major unlogged forest area on the planet." Therefore, the growing contradiction between globalization and decay of the domestic economy and society in the north and the contradiction between growing elite integration and the pillage of domestic resources and labor in the south is creating a new base for resistance-some with common opposition against capitalist state and globalization. Thus, historically, conflict is the nature of the capitalist accumulation. Increased transnational economic activity does not mean that the laws of the motion of the system have been dispensed with and capitalism has transcended its contradictions. Rather, it reveals that the more globalized the system, the greater the danger of global waves of crises. This was illustrated by the incidence of November 1999, when massive protests involving seven hundred organization and upwards of forty thousand people-workers, environmentalists, students, religious groups, etc-suddenly brought the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings in Seattle to a halt, grabbing not only the US's but world's spotlight. There had been large militant protests against globalization before-against IMF and World Bank. What was startling this time was that such massive, militant protest took place in the United States, the strong foothold of global capitalism. The protest exposed a lie carefully cultivated widely projected image of the US as a hegemonic power lacking internal social contradictions. Today, challenges against globalization trend is posed from different part of the world in different forms. For example East Asia . Once establishment economists and globalists were singing praises of the "Asian tigers". The World Bank basked in the glow of its 1993 report, The Asian Miracle. Throughout ruling circles, the "Asian mode" was touted as proof that open markets and the free flow capital would be the salvation of humankind. Today, more than a year into the region's devastating economic crises, the World Bank is preparing a new report. Rethinking Asia's Miracle it is to be called. If any region is a test case for establishment claims about globalization it is East Asia and its newly industrializing countries-South Korea, Thailand , Indonesia, Malaysia, and Taiwan . And the claims for economic globalization now seems laughable. East Asia's crisis now pose a serious threat to the capitalist world economy as a whole, "the biggest threat to global pros! perity" since the1970s as Business Week puts it (January 26, 1998). The working class and the poor throughout East Asia now find themselves in a battle with international capital. In Korea, between the summer of 1987 and late 1989 Korean workers launch over 7000 strikes ( close to 10 per day), a record of a country of this population. Strikes by young women in garment factories in Bogor and electronics plants in Kuala Lumpur, by aircraft workers in Bandung against IMF-directed layoffs, mass demonstrations by tens and thousands of workers in Surabaya, and weeks of strikes by workers at Kia in South Korea are all sings of working-class resistance against privatization, austerity and poverty. East Asia has become the focal-point of the international class struggle. Out of these struggles a new "Asian Model" may emerge-a model of working class resistance to the capitalist globalization. As oppose to the "ineffective" struggle one can find throughout the world peasants movements in Mexico, guerilla movements in Peru, labor union in France, students in Britain and the Seattle protest in the US and varieties of other groups and international movements like environment women and gay have resisted hegemony of globalization and creating counter tendencies at such significant level that, at the 1996 annual Devos World Economic Forum's founder and managing director published a warning entitles: "Start Taking Backlash Against Globalization Seriously". Analyzing various resistances to globalization, James Petras observes that one must take into account the great variety of social forces have taken the lead in different social-economic settings, with varying degrees of intensity and with a broad gamut of strategies. Nevertheless, he pointed out the worldwide resistances showing certain general characteristics containing both weakness and strength of the movements against the forces of world capitalism. First, beginning in the early 1970s and accelerating through the 1990s, the capitalist class has taken an advantage of highly bureaucratized trade union movement divorced from the rank an file and highly dependent on state favors to roll back labor's bargaining power. While the current capitalists have developed a coherent capitalist strategy that bars any concession on welfare issues, labor bureaucrats have remained tied to earlier concept of social contracts and the welfare state, unable and unwilling to develop an anti-! capitalist strategy or consider a socialist alternative. Here, labors remains as pressure groups linked to sectoral struggles and narrow wage issues. Second, taking electoral vehicles as approach to blocking the application of globalist polices. Since, most anti-globlist electoral opposition is confined to the legislature, and a minority at that, the globalist polices continues to be applied by executive decree and/or through globalist influence over the legislature. Third, former revolutionary groupings in the seventies and eighties , upon turning to electoral politics an entering political office have almost always abandoned their opposition to globalization an accepted its postulates. As a result, all the groups adversely affected by globalization have turned towards extra-parliamentary activities and organizations: general strikes in France, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, South Korea etc. Land occupations in Brazil, Paraguay, El Salvador, Mexico, Colombia Guatemala,! etc. Urban revolts in Venezuela, Dominican Republic Argentina etc. Gu erilla movements in Mexico, Peru, Zaire etc. An important weakness of these resistances is that they all start as defensive movements of existing rights and interests threatened by the globalist ruling class. These are to protest the loss of employment, cuts in social security, living standards, pension plans, privatization of public enterprises etc. But within the common defense of past popular gains, some of the movements have taken the offensive and sough to advance toward structural changes: the peasants movement of Chapare, Mexico, the MST in Brazil, the FARC-peasant movements in Colombia, the coca farmers in Chapare etc. An important positive aspect of the opposition to globalism is the general tendency of all movements to form coalitions with or incorporate environmental, gender , ethnic or racial groups and struggles. This unity has increased the strength of challenge against globalist project of exploitation and pollution and deepening inter-class and intra-class in! equalities. But the process of opposition, he evaluates , is uneven between countries and within countries. And within countries some sectors, regions, classes, ethnic group demonstrate greater resistance than others. For example, in Europe and Asia it has been the workers from the most advanced sectors ( transport in France and metal workers in South Korea) who have spearheaded the struggle. Public sectors workers have been more active than private sectors in Chile, Argenina, Brzil and Mexico. In Brazil landless workers are more combative than the trade unions etc. However, the spread of opposition and its growing depth outside the electoral arenas has created firm base for a systematic alternative. Now the basic question that hasn't been resolved: if there is such general opposition, why hasn't globalism been replaced by socialist forces? To Petras, "The answer is tow fold: more groups have been thrown back onto limited resources and as a result are largely engaged in def! ensive struggles; secondly, while various alternatives are being elabo rated , none have achieved general acceptance or they remain embedded in sectoral or local settings." Globalization or Imperialism-- Where Are We? We have seen that one of the most declared tenets of globalization is that there is no alternative to it. The dominant globalist view asserts that it has made class struggle ineffective, imperialism irrelevant and socialism a permanently defeated project. So humanity has no option other then globalization. Global capitalism has brought revolution in the economy. Technology brought tremendous opportunity for mankind producing and distributing resources all over the world. Hence, it is pragmatic to take the opportunity and go with the flow or , as Friedman puts it, be 'road-killed'. The mantra constantly repeated in his work is that globalization is not a choice. It's a reality. Globalization has also influenced the left intelligentsia. And there exist confusion at different levels among some Marxists and postmodern Marxists regarding the globalist thesis which, as Hirst and Thosmom put it, mesmerized the analysts. James Petras shows that in several respect-measure of power, specificity of agencies, understanding class interests and inequalities, flows of income and investment-globalization shows weakness to imperialism in analyzing the structure and functions of contemporary world capitalism. Firstly, the concept of globalization argues for the interdependence of nations, shared nature of economies, the mutuality of interests, shared benefits of the exchanges. Imperialism, on the contrary, emphasizes the dominations and exploitation by imperial states (and certainly multinational corporations and international financial institutions connected with them) of less developed states and laboring classes. In contemporary world it is clear that the imperial countries are hardly dependent on most of the Third World countries they trade with, they have diverse suppliers. They wield disproportionate or decisive influence in the international financial agencies and other world bodies. On the other hand, dominated counties are low wage area, interest and profit exporters, they are virtual captives of the international financial institutions (IFIs) and highly dependent on limited overseas market. Hence, imperialism fits the realties much better than the notion of globaliza! tion. Secondly, with regard to the social agencies of capitalist expansion, the concept of globalization heavily relies on the diffusions of technology accompanied by the information flows and the abstract notion of "market forces". In contrast the concept of imperialism sees multinational corporations, banks, the imperial states are the driving forces of capitalist expansion- the flow of capital, goods and technology. Technology have no "logic", it is the head of the imperials states, multinational corporations(MNCs), supported by the IFIs (whose personnel are appointed by the imperials states in line with the interest of the MNCs) establish the frame of global exchanges. Technology operate only within that parameter. Thus, the concept of imperialism gives more precise idea of the social agencies of worldwide capitalist movements than the notion of globalization. Thirdly, globalists tell us that the contemporary capitalism brought tremendous opportunity of resources for di! fferent nations and mass people of the world. On the contrary, reality represents a robust relation between worldwide capitalist expansion and the increasing inequalities in the world. Data covering long and short-term large-scale flows of incomes both at world level, national and class level shows the increasing inequalities. Globalization does not focus on the different locus of exploitation and accumulation of the giant firms. In contrast, the frameworks of imperialism explains inequalities and exploitations worldwide. Fourthly, the structure of the international flows income, investment, royalty payments does not correspond to any notion of interdependent world as premised by globalist theory. In contrast, the uni-directional flow toward the imperial based corporations is ready understood within the conceptual framework of imperial theory. A vivid example is the military policy and intelligence operations. There is no mutual penetration of military commands, but the extension of military missions from the imperial center to the dominated c! ountries. All these empirical measures allow us to argue for the greater scientific utility of the concept of imperialism over globalization. We have shown that recent proponents of globalization, from neoliberal standpoint, are more straightforward in claiming that world has become "one world" . They claim that modern computer technology caused radical shift in the structure of capitalism hitherto unprecedented in history and has brought tremendous opportunity for mankind. Hence, it has defeated socialism permanently as a viable alternative. Globalist Friedman is more clear in claiming homogeneity in economy and culture, free from contradictions. Globalists with post Marxian/postmodern left share with the basic assumptions of globalization that capitalism has changed fundamentally and that nation-state has become powerless or its power has reduced substantially in the face of globalization. But they explain their position with Marxist jargon-global division of labor, transnational class formation for which capital, at current stage, can not be explained by state and social classes confined within national boundary. Like neoliberals, they consider technology as the determining factor. This is reflected in their approach to characterize this new brand of capitalism by using special phrases like 'Informational capitalism', 'network society' etc. (Manual Castells). Some has directly claimed that it is not imperialism, it is globalization that is, at present, the highest stage of capitalism. Conclusion In our finding capitalism is born global. And there is no doubt that computer technology has accelerated the speed of the transfer of capital, goods and technology in different parts of the world and occupied more non-capitalist space. The claims of the globalists is unreal-an overstated portrait of capitalism. The structure of capitalism has not changed. Also, nation-state , especially the imperial states remains, as usual, the chief actor in capitalist expansion. It is not the technology, it is politics in command that decides the movement of capital, its accumulation thorough the world. It is class interests pursued by the agencies like multinational corporations, international financial institutions and other politico-military organizations backed by the powerful imperial nation-state as we have shown with empirical evidence. Globalization is charged with the ideology of neoliberalism presenting a fresh version of capitalism as something inevitable and egalitarian. It distorts reality by hiding contradictions and thus negating struggles of the victims against imperialism. Globalism, the thesis of "one world" does not explain contemporary capitalist world order. It is imperialism that better explains the capitalist world-a world historically divided by the rich and poor. The relation is still that of dominators and dominated. Ownership and control of international organization, military network of the imperial states, as we have shown, has always been one-sided. Therefore, the "interdependent" world of the globalists does not exist. World inequalities in the domestics economies of North and South and disparity between the rich and poor are increasing. Human environment is more threatened. Even statistical evidence from capitalist sources suggests that the that world is getting more polarized. I! t is not the business of the wild wide web of gobalism to fill up the gap created by the social injustice. To undermine the analytical format of world imperialism is to betray the historical necessity of social struggle for human emancipation. [This paper was presented at the discussion in memory of the South Korean farmer Lee Kyuang-Hae who died at the Cancun Resistance. The discussion was organized by the Lee Kyuag-Hae Anti-imperialist Globalization Movement and held on 15 February 2004 at Bishya Sahitya Kendra Auditorium, Dhaka. Bangladesh. ] [email protected] Bibliography Amin, S 1980. Class and Nation. New York: Monthly Review. Anderson, Perry 1992. A Zone of Engagement. London:Verso Appadurai, Arjun 1990. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy" in Featherstone M (ed.). Global Culture. London: Sage Appadurai, Arjun 1996. Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Beck, U 1992. Risk Society. London: Sage. Braverman, Harry 1975. "Two Comments, in Technology, the Labor Process and the Working Class. Monthly Review . 28:3 (Special) Brubaker, R 1984. The Limits of Rationality. London: Allen & Unwin. Burback Roger 1997. "Socialism is Dead, Long Live Socialism." NACLA Report on the Americas.31:3 (November-December) Burback Roger and Robinson, William I999. "Globalization As Epochal Shift" in Science and Society, 63:1 Comte, August 1975. August Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. (edited by Lenzer, Gertrud). New York: Harper and Row Carpenter, E and McLuhan M (ed.). 1970. Explorations in Communications, London: Cape Callinicos, A. et al 1994. Marxism and the New Imperialism. London: Bookmarks Castaneda, Jorge 1993. Utopia Unarmed. New York: Vintage Castells, M 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Chussudovsky, Michel 1997. "The Global Financial Crises", Canadian Dimension, 31:6 Cohen, Mitchel 1996. "Murder in Nigeria: Ordered by Shell and the IMF, Paid for by the US Government." in Canadian Dimension, 30:3 Cox, Kevin R (ed).1997. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, New York: Rutledge Cox, R 1996. "Economic Globalization and the Limits to Liberal Democracy" in . McGrew, A (ed), The Transformation of Democracy? Globalization and Territorial Democracy. Cambridge: Polity press Dicken, P 1988. Global Shift. London: Paul Chapman. Dore, R (ed.). 1995. Convergence or Diversity? National Models of Production in Global Economy. New York: Cornell University Press. Doremus, Paul N et al 1998. The Myth of Global Corporation.: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Du Boff, Richard B et al 1997 "A Critique on Tabb on Globalization", Monthly Review , 49:6 Dupuy, Alex 1998. "Thoughts on Globalization, Marxism, and the Left" Latin American Perspectives, 25:6 Fisher, Claude et al 1996. Inequality by Design. Princeton: Princeton Univesity Press. Frank, A 1971. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (revised edn.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Friedman, Thomas L 1999. The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux Gamble, A and Payne, A. 1991. "Conclusion: The New Regionalism" in Gamble and Payne (ed.), Regionalism and World Order . London: Macmillan .Giddens, A 1990. The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A 1991. Modernity and Self-identity, Cambridge: Polity Gilpin, R 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Glyn, Andrew 1995. "Social Democracy and Full Employment", New Left Review 211 Golding, Peter 1998. "Global Village or Cultural Pillage?: The Unequal Inheritance of the Communications Revolutions" in McChesney, Robert W et al (ed.). Capitalism and the Information Age: The Political Economy of the Global Communication Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press Goldsmith, Edward 1996. "Global Trade and the Environment" in The Case Against Global Economy: And for a Turn Toward the Local. Mander, Jerry and Goldsmith, Edward (ed.). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Gordon, D 1988. "The Global Economy: New Edifice or Crumbling Foundations?" in New Left Review 168. Green, Gordon et al 1992. "International Comparisons of Earnings Inequality for Men in the 1980s". Review of Income and Wealth, 38:1 Greider, William 1997. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster. Habsbawm, Eric 1962. The Age of Revolution . New York: Mentor Habsbawm, Eric 1977. The Age of Capital. London: Sphere Habsbawm, Eric 1987. The Age of Empire. New York: Pantheon Habsbawm, Eric 1996. The Age of Extremes . New York: Vintage Harris, Richard L and Seid, Melinda J (ed). 2000. Critical Perspectives on Globalization and Neoliberalism in The Developing Countries, Boston: Brill Harvey, D 1989. The Conditions of Modernity , Oxford: Blackwell Held, David 1991. "Democracy and the Global System". in Held, David (ed.). Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Held, David and McGrew, Anthony (ed.) 2000. The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Policy Press Hirst, P 1997. "The Global Economy: Myths and Realities," International Affairs, 73:3 Hirst, Paul and Thomson, Graham. 1996. Globalization in Questions: The International Political Economy and the Possibilities of Governments. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hirst, P and Thomson, G 1999. Globalization in Questions. (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Polity Press. Hirst, P and Thomson, G 2000. "Globalization and the History of the International Economy." in Held and McGerw (ed.). The Global Transformation Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press Hopkins, T and Wallerstein, I 1980. Process of the World-System. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hopkins, T and Wallerstein, I 1982. World-Systems Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hu, W 1992 "Global Corporations are National Firm with International Operations," California Management Review , 34 Kellner, Douglas 1999 "Globalization and the Postmodern Turn" Sub-Stance 125 Koehane, R and Nye, J (eds.). 1973. Transnational Relations and World Politics Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Korten, David C 1995. When Corporations Rule the World . Hartford: Kumerian Press. Korten, David C 1999a. The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. Hartford: Kumerian Press Korten, David C 1999b. "The Post-Corporate World" . The Ecologist, 29:3 Korten, David C 1999c. "The Lexus and the Olive Tree. (Review)" Tikkun, 14:4 Krishnan, Raghu 1996. "The First Revolt Against Globalization". Monthly Review , 48:1 Lash, S and Urry, J 1987. The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Lash, S and Urry, J 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage Lechner, Frank J and Boli, John (ed.) 2000. The Globalization Reader. New York: Blackwell Lenin, V. 1939. Imperialism. New York: International. Levy, M 1966. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lim, Paul J 2001. "Stay Home, Investor, If You Want to Keep Your Money" , U.S. News & World Report, 130:20 Lowy, Michael 1998. "Globalization and Internationalism: How Up-to-date is the Communist Manifesto". Monthly Review, 50:6 Magdoff, Harry 1995. "A Note on "Market Socialism". Monthly Review, 47:1 Magdoff, Harry 1998. "The Same Old State" Monthly Review, 49:8 Maddison, A 1987. "Growth and Slowdown in Advance Capitalist Economies: Techniques of Quantitative Assessment". Journal of Economic Literature, 25:2 Mann, M 1986. The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, M 1993. "Nation-States in Europe and Other Continents: Diversifying, Developing, Not Dying". Daedalus, 122:3 Mann, M 1999. "Has Globalization Ended the Rise and Rise of the Nation-State?" Review of International Political Economy 4. Marcuse, Peter 2000. "The Language of Globalization" Monthly Review , 52:3 Marx, K 1977. Selected Writings, Oxford : Oxford University Press Marx, K and Engles, F 1985. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin McChesney, Robert W 1998. "The Political Economy of Global Communication" in McChesney, Robert W et al (ed.). Capitalism and the Information Age: The Political Economy of the Global Communication Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press McChesney, Robert W 2001. "Global Media, Neoliberalism, and Imperialism", Monthly Review, 52:10 McGrew, A 1992. "Conceptualizing Global Politics" in McGrew et al (ed.). Global Politics: Polity McNally, David 1998. "Globalization on Trial: Crisis and Class Struggle in East Asia". Monthly Review, 50:4 McLuhan, M 1964. Understanding Media . London: Rutledge. Meiksins, Peter 1998 " Work, New Technology, and Capitalism" in McChesney, Robert W et al (ed.). Capitalism and the Information Age: The Political Economy of the Global Communication Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press Neff, Gina 1996. "When Corporate Rules the World (Book Review)". The Nation. 262 (February 5). Ohmae, K 1990. The Borderless World. London: Collins Ohmae, K 1995. The End of the Nation State . New York: Free Press. Oonk, Gisbert 2000. Journal of World History. Outhwaite, William 1983. in Bottomore, Tom (ed.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Panitch, Leo 1996. "Globalization, States, and Left Strategies", Social Justice, 23:1-2 Parson, T 1977. The Evolutions of Societies Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Petras, James 1997. "Critical Reflections on Globalization," Economic and Political Weekly, (September 6) Petras, James 1998. "The Process of Globalization: The Role of the State and Multinational Corporations". Archives. (http://aidc.org.za/archives/petras/html) Petras, James 1999a. "Globalization: A Critical Analysis". Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29:1 Petras, James 1999b. "Globalization: A Socialist Perspective". Economic and Political Weekly, (February 20) Petras, James 2000a. "The Third Way : Myth and Reality" . Monthly Review, 51:10 Petras, James 2000b. "China in the Context of Globalization". Journal of Contemporary Asia, 30:1 Reid, T R 1984. The Chip: How Two American Invented the Microchip and Launched Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster. Revolutionary Communist Party, USA 2000. Notes on Political Economy: Our Analysis of the 1980s, Issues of Methodology, and The Current World Situation. Riech, R 1991. The Work of Nations. New York Robertson, R 1985 "The Relativization of Societies: Modern Religion and Globalization" in Robin, T. Shepherd, W and McBride, J (eds.). Cults, Culture and the Law .Chico: Scholars. Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization . London: Sage Robinson, William 1996. "Globalization: Nine Theses of Our Epoch". Race and Class, 38:2 Rosenau, J 1980. The Study of Global Interdependence. New York: Nichols Rosenau, J 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Saro-Wiwa, Ken 1995. "Notes form Gulag" World Press Review, 42:10 Sivanandan, A 1997. "Capitalism, Globalization and Epochal Shifts: An Exchange". Monthly Review, 48:9 Sivanandan, A 1998. "Globalization and the Left" Race and Class. 40:2-3 Smith, David A et al (ed).1999. States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy. New York: Rutledge Stallings, Barbara and Streeck, Wolfgang 1995. " Capitalism in Conflict? The United States, Europe, and Japan in the Post-Cold War World", in Stallings, Barbara (ed.). Global Change, Regional Response, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sweezy, Paul 1997. "More (or Less) on Globalization". Monthly Review, 49:4 Sweezy, Paul et al 2000. "Towards a New Internationalism". Monthly Review, 52:3 Sweezy, Paul et al 2001. "The New Economy: Myth and Reality" Monthly Review, 52:11 Tabb, William K 1997. "Globalization Is An Issue, the Power of Capital is The Issue". Monthly Review, 49:2 Thomson, G 1998. "Globalization versus Regionalism?". Journal of North African Studies. Hannerz, Ulf 1991. " Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures" in Culture, Globalization and the World-System, King Anthony (ed.). State University of New York, Binghamton. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) 1996. 1996 World Investment Report: Investments, Trade and International Policy Arrangements . New York and Geneva: United Nations. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) 1997. World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations, Market Structure and Competition Policy. New York and Geneva: United Nations. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)1997. World Economic and Social Survey 1997. New York: United Nations. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 1996. Human Development Report 1996. New York: Oxford University Press Van der Pijl, K 1999. Transnational Classes and International Relations. London: Rutledge. Wade, R 1996. "Globalization and its Limits: Reports of the Death of National Economy are Greatly Exaggerated" in Berger, S and Dore, R (eds.), National Diversity and Global Capitalism, Ithaca Wallerstein, I 1974. The Modern World-System . New York: Academic Wallerstein, I 1980. The Modern World-System II . New York: Academic Wallerstein, I 1990. "Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System" in Featherstone, M (ed). Global Culture. London: Sage Waters, Malcolm 2001. Globalization (2nd edn.). New York: Rutledge. Webster 1989. Oxford English Dictionary. Wood, Ellen Meiksins 1996. "Marxism and Postmodernism: A Reply to Roger Burback". Monthly Review, 47:10 Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 1998. "Class Compacts, The Welfare State, and Epochal Shifts". Monthly Review, 49:8 Wood 1999. "An Interview with Ellen Meiksins Wood" by Phelps, Christopher, Monthly Review, 51:1 Weiss, Linda. 1997. "Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State." New Left Review, 225 Weiss, Linda 1998. State Capacity: Governing the Economy in a Global Era. Cambridge: Policy Press Wresch, William 1996. Disconnected: Haves and Have-nots in the Information Age. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey. Yates, Michael D 2001. "The "New" Economy and the Labor Movement". Monthly Review, 52 11 Zevin 1992. "Are World Financial Markets More Open?" in Banuri, T and Schor, J.B. (ed). Financial Openness and National Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press