Industrialisation is often defined by “large-scale society with centralised control, large scale machinery and a competitive system.” (Taken from Globalisation Pack, 2003) In this system businesses compete with each other to remain in the market by means of continuous technological innovation, a search for cheaper labour, and devising new goods for the consumer. However, personally I feel one of the most fundamental factors when trying to evaluate industrialism is the reliance of machine technology and the forcing of the peoples off their land through enclosure, transforming indigenous peoples from being subsistence –resourceful, into wage salves who must sell their work to keep alive, and must buy their food, living quarters (as opposed to building their own homes) and other necessities from the industrial society.
The expansion of industrialisation and capitalism under a new guise termed ‘Globalisation’, is spreading and contaminating cultures and peoples all over the World, sheltering under the influence of programmes for ‘development’ overseen by government run financial institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
International trade and investment have been the engines of world growth over the past 50 years. International organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) “Established in 1995 to administer the rules of international trade agreed by its members”, has resulted in what is commonly acknowledged as ‘Free Trade’.
The WTO claims to be a “Permanent organisation with the judicial powers to rule on international trade disputes, whose rules make it hard for a country to favour their own industry over imports from other countries, as well as not allowing a country to favour imports of one country over those from another”. (www.wto.org/)
The WTO argues that growth of trade between countries increase the wealth of everyone, by allowing the production of goods and services by those who are most efficient and the lowering of barriers, such as tariffs and import quotas through free trade.
Many support the WTO and its ideology of free trade. Yet is this free trade really free?
Pro-Globalisationists believe the benefits of free trade have been shared by most, and those countries that are getting poorer are those that are not open to world trade, most notably the African nations.
Yet to me it seems clear that the WTO’s rules favour companies from wealthy countries by making it difficult for poorer countries to protect their own industries. Few are likely to survive the opening up of their markets, such as, small shopkeepers and producers who depend entirely on the farming community. “Most will be forced to seek refuge in the slums of the nearest conurbation’s and, without land on which to grow their food, without jobs-as the level of employment is already horrific-and without any employment benefits, they will be reduced to a state of total destitution.
We must also examine the WTO’s agreement on trade services (GATS) which would allow for services which were originally managed by the state on behalf of the local communities, (and were largely subsidised by the public so that they could be provided for free,) “Would now be taken over by unaccountable corporations who could charge the maximum price that they could get away with. Creating an unprecedented number of poor people who would thus be deprived access to the basic requirements of life.” (Teddy Goldsmith, ‘Poverty-The Child Of Progress’, The Ecologist, 2001) So rather than assisting communities, the freeing of financial markets it can be argued, has brought global instability and the exploitation of the poor through labour, for the benefit of the rich.
There are however two more international organisation ‘players’ in the promotion and systematic expansion of globalisation. These being, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank.
The IMF was established in the wake of the World War 2 in 1946 to “Promote international cooperation on finance, encourage stability in exchange rates and orderly systems for exchanging money between countries, and to provide temporary assistance to countries suffering balance of debt payments problems.”) The IMF is responsible for debts incurred by third World countries to the western world, and like the WTO, the IMF believes that “World propensity is enhanced by a greater exchange between nations and the abiding of their rules.” () Yet this abiding of the rules means exploiting its position of power and control over the smaller and less ‘developed’ countries by stealth. The IMF seeks to provide an alternative where produce is exported to the western world at highly deflated prices, and cheap, subsidised produce imported. The outcome is local producers are forced into monoculture farming of their crops/produce at uncompetitive rates. By introducing structural adjustment programmes an attempt is made to integrate the farmers into wage-slavery by making it impossible to compete with cheap subsidised imports, and forcing them to find employment (e.g. in factories) and into the wage labour economy.
Finally we come to The World Bank which aims to provide loans to poor countries for “development projects and investment projects, such as water and sanitation, natural resource management education and health.” (www.worldbank.org/) Sounds pretty cool doesn’t it? Yet there seems to be a hidden agenda when observed more closely. It is commonly acknowledged that the high level of debt incurred by Third world countries is almost impossible to pay off because of the financial imbalances of the parties concerned. They are unable to successfully keep the local economy afloat let alone pay off debt. Payments still have to be met in order to reduce the balance, so economic and political control are then placed in the hands of the western world (under the pretence of trying to assist) and removed from the people of the land.
I am not trying to conclude that these funds or organisations do no good to the people in under developed countries, as most exports also use some imports, and in some cases the lowering of import barriers makes export industries even more efficient and competitive in world markets. However, I just feel that they often have hidden agendas (or in some cases, not so hidden) in its aims. Organisations like IMF and World Bank are not doing enough to alleviate poverty, and may be even contributing to it. “Opening up a country, or regions to free trade can undermine a local subsistence economy. An area that becomes dependent upon a few products sold on world markets is very vulnerable to shifts in prices as wee as to technological change,” (Anthony Giddens, ‘Runaway World’ P17, 1999)
I argue that if these organisations really want to help, then the poorer nations should have their debts to international banks excused, as the only beneficiaries are the banks themselves and the globalisation culture they are trying to spread.
But what is the impact of globalisation and technological advancement on indigenous people and the environment?
Previously in world history “The greater part of the world’s population lived in conditions that, as we view them from our contemporary perspective, could only be considered opulent.” Most people’s material needs and wants were easily satisfied as they had all they needed, or could make what was directly unavailable from the land. It was a time of ‘self sufficiency’ “Their ability to satisfy all of their needs within their own means. (And if that meant they had to regard those things beyond their means as being unneeded, and hence unwanted, that was not a limit on their self sufficiency but rather am improvement in their happiness.” (Kirckpatrick Sale, ‘Human Scale’, p392, 1980) Yet nobody starved or went without. He could depend on the community of which he was a member to offer support if necessary.
Today’s world paints a different picture. Based on a global market of commodities and economic growth, modernisation and development, we are destroying the planet biosphere through pollution, wildlife destruction, global warming and many other environmental disasters. We are also destroying the traditional ways of life for many people including not only their sustainable forms of using the environment for food, shelter and community, but also their culture, Spirituality and communities.
At the Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle 1999, indigenous peoples from various regions came to express their “Great concern over how the WTO is destroying Mother earth and the cultural and biological diversity of which {they} are part.” (Damaher, k & Burbach, R ‘Globalize This’, P85, 2000)
They argued how the export/import competition and liberalisation has allowed cheap agricultural products into the community, causing the environmental destruction of agricultural practices of indigenous peoples, coinciding with the introduction of junk food into communities, as opposed to traditional foods and diet. Previously they suffered from none of the afflictions of a western lifestyle, such as tooth decay, heart disease, cancer, obesity and pollution to name a few, and as a whole were relatively happy and care free people. However, “Many modern anthropologists have noted how healthy and well -fed tribal [indigenous] peoples, with whom they lived, diets and state of health deteriorated as soon as they adopted the lifestyle of their colonisers [western world].” (Teddy Goldsmith, ‘Poverty-The Child of Progress’, P44, 2001).
To many this contamination of culture looks suspiciously like “Westernisation or perhaps Americanisation, since many of the most visible cultural expressions of globalisation are American- Coca-Cola, McDonalds and CNN.” (Giddens, ‘Runaway World/, P15, 1999) Many of the younger generations begin adopting western ideologies, resulting in the gradual dissolution and eventually extinction of many traditional modes of indigenous culture. (E.g. production, spirituality, education, dance, music, diets, and dress.)
The environment also has not escaped the clutches of globalisation and has had catastrophic changes heaped upon it due to the spread of globalisation and the consumer culture.
It is fair to say that all cultures have at one time or another gone against nature to ensure survival. “But nowhere else was the essential reverence for nature seriously challenged, nowhere did there emerge the idea that human achievement and material betterment were to be one by opposing nature, nowhere ant equivalent to that frenzy of defiance and destruction that we find on the Western record.” (Sale, ‘The Conquest Of Paradise, P88, 1990)
It is possible to argue that the major causes of environmental damage is when those who are producing or consuming the goods or services do not have to bear the full costs of their actions, such as pollution. And therefore it is irresponsible to target the leading countries or organisation, when it is a collective problem. Yet it is impossible to ignore that many of the larger transnational companies place environmentally industries in countries that do not have adequate resources or control. And many of these industries exploit the resources of poor countries with little or no regard to either the long-term cost of the country in terms of loss of national resource, or to the environment. The process of industrialisation has lead to global warming and the deterioration of the atmosphere we live and breathe in.
It is not known how long are we willing to go on killing the environment before they re-think their policies? Already “25 million people world wide have been forced to abandon their lands through a complex myriad of causes involving flooding, drought, soil erosion, deforestation, earthquakes, nuclear accidents and toxic spills.” The world is being reduced to a junkyard, “With all corners of the world affected. There are vast swathes of land where the environment has become so degraded it can no longer support life. Each region of the world experiences its own specific agonies.” (Townsend, ‘Environmental Refugees’ ‘The Ecologist’, P22, 2002.)
Restoration and renewal essential necessities, yet in most cases nothing is or can be done to reverse the damage.
So what are the alternatives to globalisation?
Through my research I have come to the conclusion that the rising inequality of power and wealth is the inevitable result of market forces. Given free reign, market forces give the rich the power to add further to their wealth. Hence, large corporations invest in poor countries only because they can make greater profits from low wage levels or for access to their natural resources. (I.e. oil in the African countries). The free market does nothing to address the redistribution of wealth, and only assumes that the poor will benefit it some way.
But what if we could turn back the clock? What would be the alternatives and solutions? These vary from Marxist revolution to less defined objectives, such as the ‘end to poverty’. However, there is a strong belief amongst many, that the only way forward is the removal of power from the global, and return it once again to the local. I am unsure how this could be achieved, but it seems, that if the constraints surrounding local governments (world debt being one) are removed and the global institutions weakened, it would give power back to national and local governments, resulting in them being able to make pro-active decisions on investment, trade and agriculture within their borders.
This may seem highly unlikely as long as the capitalist machine continues to devour and consume indiscriminately of peoples, states and the environment, yet “We are better off fighting for what we want and not getting it than fighting for what we don’t want and getting it.” (Eugene Debs, taken from ‘Watson, ‘Against The MegaMachine’, P21,
Bibliography:
Danaher, K & Burbach, R, ‘Globalize This’. Monroe Mauve, Common Courage Press, 2000.
Goldsmith, Teddy, ‘Poverty-The Child Of Progress’, The Ecologist, 2001.
Giddens, Andrew, ‘Runaway World’, London, Profile Books, 1999.
Globalisation pack, London, 2003.
Sale, Kirkpatrick, ‘Human Scale, London. Secker & Warburg, 1980.
Sale, Kirkpatrick, ‘The Conquest Of Paradise’, London, Holder & Stoughton, 1990.
Townsend, ‘Environmental Refugees’, The Ecologist, 2002.
Watson, David, Against The MegaMachine, NY, Autonomedia Detroit, Fifth Estate.
.
Jerome Witter M30190119
CM114
Assignment Two: Impact of Globalisation
Mira Levinson
