Political theoretician Michael Parenti has this to say on capitalist imperialism:
“Capitalist imperialism invests in other countries, transforming and dominating their economies, cultures, and political life, integrating their financial and productive structures into an international system of capital accumulation.”
~ Against Empire, Chapter 1
This definition can also be applied to globalisation, as countries are invested into, in order to provide a source of “capital accumulation”. In order to make these profits as high as they can be, globalisation focuses on paying labourers as little as possible. The similarity here is that imperialism is strongly linked to slavery, from the British Empire’s rule over the Irish, to the Nazi employment of slave labour in concentration camps and one can say that globalisation has also enslaved millions by enforcing long hours for little pay in developing countries which do not have any workers’ rights. Imperialist nations saw an undeveloped country as, “not only a source of raw materials and slaves but a market for manufactured goods.” I feel that those striving for globalisation see developing countries in a similar way.
There are also differences between globalisation and imperialism, such as the obvious fact that globalisation allows for an exchange to be made between nations, rather than the one-way oppression of imperialism. In fact, globalisation has been proven to be shrinking the gap between rich and poor in parts of Asia and South America, bringing three billion people out of poverty over the past fifty years through trading measures such as reducing tariff barriers. But do the indigenous peoples of these developing countries have a say in how their lives are shaped by the technological and economical advancements of the more developed societies? Well perhaps their lack of choice is a price they must pay, as without globalisation their economies would suffer due to the lack of imports and new technology.
Also, unemployment levels would rise and money would be lost from exports. But surely the citizens of these nations value their freedom and have some concept of the working rights they are entitled to? Unfortunately their governments can only gain foreign interest by serving up workers who will work with no demand for these rights. The most important aspect of globalisation is the fact that it has allows nations to communicate, not only to benefit human knowledge and technology, but to allow the predicaments and voices of millions living in poverty to be heard. However, as the shadow of imperialism still lingers over many nations, globalisation has yet to unite the world in an equal manner, but has united some nations to the extent that the trust between governments is strong, which may, in turn, cause more trust throughout society. But this isn’t the aim of globalisation. Although it is impossible to definitively define globalisation I will try to do so in reference to large firms seeking to better their relations with a certain country and gain territorial and financial advantages in the name of speeding up “world-wide interconnectedness”. The aim of globalisation is set out by the companies deciding to reinforce their communications with a certain country in order to increase sales, not to make the world a better place to live in. Any kind of benefit to society is a predictable ramification of technological and social advancement allowing the reputation of the firm to remain intact. However, investors are not the only ones causing the exploitation of indigenous workers. Leaders of certain countries surrender their land to foreign clients as well as surrendering the hope of ever improving the quality of life of their citizens. In some cases this is due to their financial dependence on a First World nation, but sometimes this is also due to the sheer corruption of a nation’s government.
Globalisation is fuelled by capitalism, the aim being to make as much profit as possible, although these huge profits are in no way vital to the survival of these capitalist nations. I believe that if globalisation is more than imperialism, this capitalist agenda must be abandoned, because as long as the developing world is being manipulated by the developed world, how can they ever be truly “interconnected”?
It is evident in the public eye that America is the driving force behind globalisation, imposing its culture wherever it can and there is a risk that ultimately the world will choose American products over those of their own country. This may be because of price or quality but may also be because American firms may eventually own the majority of the world’s large companies. This could cause traditions, customs, religions and family values to be swallowed up by the US’s charge for globalisation as they disregard irrelevant and outdated aspects of certain cultures.
So what has changed since the 19th century? Well the answer is, not much, the Third World has ever since been serving its purpose to the west, as a source of high profits. As long as the national leaders are bribed and are protected by US troops, there is no need to change anything. But if globalisation is merely imperialism by another name, the world can expect the same response imperialism has evoked throughout history. Rebellion.
Bibliography and References
Parenti, M, (1995) Against Empire, City Light Books, Ch. 1 ~ A concise account of the conversion to a global economy and the history of imperialism
www.nd.edu/~kellogg/WPS/261.pdf ~ A website focusing on the definition of globalisation
www.polity.co.uk/global/ ~ A globalisation research site
http://www.globalisationguide.org ~ A website asking key questions on globalisation