Our Global System
by Jorge Vargas
The 1950s and 1960s were marked as a period in our world's capitalist economic history in which the economically developed nations forced Western economic models on the economically underdeveloped nations. These Western powerhouses forced strategies onto these weaker states and when all of the strategies failed, the Western states blamed the imposed-upon states for the failure, claiming that they had weaker cultures, backward civilizations, inferior races, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Some of the Latin nations began opposing this in the 1960s and 1970s and thus began the great land reclamations, nationalizations, and the failed attempts of closing markets. Mexico and Brazil were not least among these nations, and they were eventually followed by nations such as India, Argentina, Egypt, Iran before the ayatollahs, and a handful of other medium powers. That was what would eventually be called the non-aligned movement.
In the 1980s, however, these attempts all began to fail and these nations were given new prescriptions for reconstruction. Now they were required to restructurize, privatize markets, have free markets and free floating currencies, and dramatic re-regulation. The Era of Developmentalism - the 1950s and 1960s - was replaced by the Age of Globalization, which became an increasingly dominant ideology following the downfall of the USSR.
The 1980s and 1990s were marked by the Washington Consensus, the Uruguay Round, and half a dozen other treaties and prescriptions that the Third World agreed to ever so rapidly. Of course, these prescriptions failed. Africa, in general, became increasingly poorer and far more unstable. Latin America's great capitals were marked by riots and conflicts, and powerful States - such as that of Argentina's - were overthrown and changed by popular demand. Asia, which had seen some growth even during the Era of Developmentalism, and the subsequent retrenchment of the 1960s and 1970s, did not meet this new epoch with as much instability, but the riots were there, as were the demonstrations. Even in the United States and in Western Europe, the rioters appeared.
Our environment was brought to its knees by a public that chose to be blind to its abuse, and our children continued to starve, in ever increasing numbers, throughout our 'globalized' streets and they were buried in our 'globalized' pits.
In the first decade of the 21st century, the challenges arose. Islamic fundamentalists took it upon themselves to oppose the West more directly than ever before even in the 1990s, with the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa and the first attempt on the World Trade Center. Their roar was heard all the more clearly in the 2001 attacks on the United States which occasioned the deaths of more than 2,000 people. But their wrath was one of vengeance and vendettas, veiled by religious piety, against a West that has long since oppressed certain segments within those societies. Though the religious fundamentalism might be a product of economic conditions, their inexcusable violence was not a reaction to the Age of Globalization.
Not at all.
Instead, the retrenchment began, in the 21st century, as it had begun in the 1960s, in Latin America, the region that has been in a peripheral economic status for far longer than any other region in our Earth. Hugo Chavez was among the most vociferous of the individuals, but the fires over Buenos Aires were perhaps more telling. The return of Somosa to Nicaragua, and the Morales invasion of Bolivia, along with Correa's triumph in Ecuador, and the closely contested elections that almost brought similarly-minded individuals to power in Mexico and Peru were all popular reactions to the Age of Globalization.
It will not be long before similar individuals rise up in Africa and Asia, though one could easily make the case that President Ahmadinejad in Iran is a clear reaction to this new epoch. Of course, in Africa and Asia, the reactions, though similar, will be expressed differently, due to the obvious cultural differences between and within Africa and Asia and Latin America.
But will this retrenchment be any more successful than that of the 1960s and 1970s? With the hardships that the U.S. economy is currently facing, it is likely that the retrenchment will arrive in all of the impoverished continents at some point within the next decade.
However, that does not answer the question.
Will it succeed? Will economic growth and capitalism now occur within the Third World States on their terms or on the terms of the economic powerhouses? Who will dictate? Or will there be cooperation? Not likely.
Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are not particularly strong enough to dictate terms of change on their own. Even if Peru and Mexico were to join, that bloc would not be enough, despite the slightly more centrist support coming from Argentina and Brazil.
The global capitalist economic system will only be fair if a majority of the currently abused - consciously or unconsciously, I leave such judgments to you - stand together. Otherwise, attempts such as those of Bolivia will be referred to as neo-populist and will be marked as dangerous and portrayed in the media as the actions of an irresponsible government.
And indeed it is! Bolivia's government is being irresponsible and rash. But who is defining irresponsibility and rashness? Is there a universal maxim? Or does it simply mean that it is not in keeping with the mandates of the Global Hegemony?
Once you answer that question, you will realize just how precarious the lives of the Third Worlders really is. We are not speaking here of conspiracy theories nor of imperialistic designs, though the situation could be described in such a fashion.
No, this is something different. We are speaking of a capitalist global system that requires a set of natural resources and manual labor at the lowest possible cost in order to produce a product for market. The inherent weakness of the states of the Third World when compared to the strength of the nations that house the home offices of most of these multinational corporations dictates that, for economic benefit, bilateral treaties will be signed in which Third World government allow these corporations to pay wages so low that dogs in New York live better lives. That is the economics of the situation.
But that is only part of the story. After all, the Third World governments are gaining something. Or else they would simply say no. The economic powerhouses are strong, but even they are not strong enough to subjugate all of the Third World - though to watch them try would be entertaining.
No, these multinational corporations are invited in. Globalization - and here I refer to the economic system I have described above and not to multi-culturalism, for that is not an economic fact - supporters point out, gleefully, that the corporations were invited to come and exploit. Of course they were! After all, they are paying wages. They are not forcing these people to work for nothing. It was written above: "allow these corporations to pay wages so low that dogs in New York live better lives." The key point there is that they are paying, not how low they are paying.
$5 a week is better than $2 and even that is better than none. So, of course people will welcome these corporations into their home countries. How could you not? The exploitation is unfortunate, but the system is set up in such a way so that it is unavoidable.
How to get out of it?
The retrenchment is coming. Do not forget, before you grow particularly hopeless. It will likely not succeed because there is currently no political will to change the situation from within, and the Third World nations are strong enough to change it from without but only for a time. The sources of wealth are controlled by the wealthy, and we in the Third World must rely on the wealthy for assistance in this struggle. But the political will is not there. The wealthy are concerned with Britney Spears, with the invasion of Iraq, with political squabbles with Iran, and with the misleading terrorist actions of the Islamic fundamentalists.
Global poverty is far behind all of those issues. The spotted owls rank higher than the poor.
So, until the political will is there - and it likely will not be - then the nations of the Third World must fight against all odds and, on occasion, a David will come about - i.e., Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, Chile, and, most recently, Peru - and for those who are not David, the retrenchment is coming, and it will give the Third World some air so that we can take a deep breath and await the next smothering.
And, in the meantime, hopelessness will continue to be prevalent throughout the world, and the extremists will always come and will always have a desire to kill and they always will. And the wealthy will focus on the smoking gun and ignore the gun-holder.
And the illegal immigrants will enter the U.S. through Mexico and on rafts, and they will forge documents and fly right through their wealthy airports, and they will sail from the coast of Africa to the Canary Islands, and wash up on the Italian boot, and the wealthy xenophobes will speak beautiful words of nationalism and the United States will start in with its 'greatest country in the history of the planet' rhetoric, and the illegals will be hunted as humanity's version of a deer, and, in the meantime, the blood of the poor will continue to boil.
But we, in the impoverished countries, will continue to wait for you, our wealthy friends, so that you can finally build up the political will that it will take to make a change.
God bless us all.
