The last decades of 20th century have been marked with the emergence of new socio-political reality, which now is being discussed in terms of Globalization. This reality’s most obvious characteristic is the fact that in “brave borderless world”, the traditional principles of political governing are being increasingly deprived of their conceptual validity. Whereas, as recent as 30 years ago, there used to be a considerable difference in how Western politicians would go about designing political and economic policies in their countries; nowadays – there is none. Even a brief glance at today’s most prominent Western politicians reveals that there is absolutely no difference between them – the same grey suits, the same conniving smiles, the same politically correct rhetoric, the same allegations of corruption, etc.
Therefore, it would only be logical, on our part, to suggest that an ongoing process of Globalization cannot be explained by purely economic reasons. Apparently, the promoters’ of Globalization true agenda is being concerned with the establishment of “new world order” and with consequential abandonment of the concept of statehood as we used to know it. In his book “The Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World”, Kenichi Ohmae defines Globalization’s foremost goal with utter frankness: “The global economy ignores barriers, but if they are not removed, they cause distortion. The traditional centralized nation-state is another cause of friction. It is ill equipped to play a meaningful role on the global stage” (2005, Plot). Thus, much advertised doctrine of “global governance”, as such that is meant to increase the efficiency of world’s economy and the levels of “tolerance” across the globe, appears to be ideologically rather then economically motivated. In our paper, we will aim at exploring this thesis thoroughly, while bringing readers’ attention to the fact that the political philosophy of neo-Liberalism, closely associated with the process of Globalization, is being based on essentially Marxist principles.
Marxism and neo-Liberalism
As of today, there is no unity among political scientists in how they define the concept of neo-Liberalism. Most of these definitions are being too vague to be even considered seriously. For example, in his article “Dreamland: The Neoliberalism of Your Desires”, Timothy Mitchell refers to neo-Liberalism in highly allegorical terms: “Neoliberalism is a triumph of the political imagination. Its achievement is double: while narrowing the window of political debate, it promises from this window a prospect without limits” (1999, 28). Yet, neo-Liberal sophisticates’ beliefs as to what represent the “shining truth” of this ideology; do not bring us closer to understanding neo-Liberalism’s actual essence.
It is important to understand that the very term neo-Liberalism is grossly misleading, since it implies this political concept being a derivative from more traditional doctrine of Liberalism. Yet, if we closely analyze neo-Liberal values, it will appear that they have very little in common with the values of traditional Liberalism – whereas; Liberals imply people’s social inequality as such that is being objectively predetermined, neo-Liberals point out to this inequality as being artificially created; whereas, Liberals promote the idea that the proper functioning of free-market economy can only be ensured if government withdraws from trying to regulate it, neo-Liberals insist that government should actively meddle in economic affairs; whereas, Liberals are being mainly concerned with the process of economic wealth’s creation, neo-Liberals are being concerned with the process of such wealth’s distribution.
Therefore, neo-Liberalism is best defined as the set of socio-political theories that are meant to promote good old Marxism under a variety of different ideological disguises. In its turn, this explains this political philosophy’s utter illusiveness. In her article “The Ghost of Neoliberalism”, Ari Perdana makes a perfectly good point while stating: “One can find those claiming to be liberal, socialist, conservative, existentialist, Keynesian or neoclassical, who passionately defend the schools of thought they subscribe to, but I don’t think there is anyone who considers her or himself a neoliberal” (2009). Let us define Marxism’s foremost conceptual premises, so that we will be able to compare them with that of neo-Liberalism: 1) Physical elimination of native European bourgeoisie as a class, 2) The elimination of the very concept of nation-state in the realm of geopolitics, 3) The transfer of global political authority solely into the hands of “idealist promoters of workers’ cause”.
Now – let us define the essential components of neo-Liberal agenda: 1) The removal of Western racially conscious politicians out of their offices as “racists”, “sexists” and “male chauvinists”, 2). The elimination of the very concept of nation-state from the realm of geopolitics, 3) The transfer of global political authority in the hands of “experts on tolerance”. Therefore, it appears that the difference between what used to represent Marxism’s foremost goal and what represents neo-Liberalism’s foremost goal today, is being purely formal.
However, it is not merely the theoretical similarity in how Marxists and neo-Liberals propose this world can be made a better place to live, which provides us with a legitimate reason to draw parallels between them, but also the actual consequences of such their proposals. As Biblical sayings goes – it is only by taking a bite out of particular tree’s fruit that one can figure out whether this tree is being poisonous or not. Despite the fact that adherents of neo-Liberalism and Globalization never seem to get tired of advertising how good would it be for ordinary people to live in “brave borderless world”, it is only very naïve people who may not be able to realize that there is clear link between Globalization and the process of poor getting poorer and rich getting richer.
Therefore, we can say that neo-Liberalism is nothing but ideological descendant of Marxism – neo-Liberals’ self-proclaimed affiliation with the values of free-market economy appears being utterly artificial, just as it used to be the case with Marxists’ concern over the process of economic Globalization. For example, in their “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, Marx and Engels have repeatedly referred to the increased levels of manufacturing specialization as the sign of bourgeoisie being aimed at attaining world domination: “National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of bourgeoisie” (1848). Yet, in the very same Manifesto, both individuals openly proclaim Communists’ true agenda as being identical to that of bourgeoisie – taking over the world: “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat in the whole world” (1848). Just as representatives of world’s financial elite, Marxists used to defy the concepts of national sovereignty, racial solidarity and cultural uniqueness. However, given the fact that Marxists’ open quest for world domination had sustained an utter fiasco, they have decided to proceed with their agenda more subtly, while operating under disguise of neo-Liberals. This is why in today’s Western countries the criticism of Communism is not being tolerated – the closer look at proponents of neo-Liberal programme reveals them as being nothing but spiritual and often biological descendants of Communist commissars. However, unlike what it was the case in the past, the politicians endowed with a Marxist mentality are now not only being capable of undermining nation-states’ integrity from within, but from outside as well, due to the fact that many of today’s international organizations, in which neo-Liberals sing a leading tune, have been turned into a quasi-states of their own. In the next part of this paper, we will aim at illustrating the theoretical soundness of this suggestion.
Global governance and international organizations
The origins of “global governance” concept can be traced back to the founding of American Federal Reserve in 1913 – a private organization entitled with the unilateral right to print money. However, back then, the most notorious representatives of American Plutocracy, such as Rothschilds and Rockefellers, also known as the major sponsors of Russian Communism and Leo Bronstein’s (Trotsky) best friends, were not yet enjoying the undisputed financial dominance in the world, simply because prior to the outbreak of WW1, U.S. Dollar was not considered an international currency.
It attained such a status in 1916 – in the middle of WW1, when the exchange rate of European major currencies had plummeted down. Yet, this was not enough for American financial tycoons – after the end of WW1, they preoccupied themselves with creating objective preconditions for the outbreak of WW2, so that U.S. Dollar would attain a status of only legitimate world’s currency. In his article “Marxism and Global Governance”, Alex Callinicos provides us with the insight on who were the actual beneficiaries of WW2: “This (war-related) crisis manifested itself within the international financial institutions set up after the Second World War – notably the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – that formed what has come to be known as the Bretton Woods System (BWS) based on the set of exchange rates fixed relative to the U.S. Dollar, which itself was on a gold exchange standard” (2002, 255). The actual end of WW2 has come in 1944, because it is namely in that year that world’s Plutocracy had attained a powerful tool of generating financial profits out of the thin air – Bretton Woods System.
Nevertheless, the only reason why European countries, ravaged by the war, have agreed to recognize U.S. Dollar as the only legitimate international currency is because it was assumed to reflect the value of objectively existing physical assets. Yet, in 1971, President Nixon has decreed that from this time on, Federal Reserve did not have any obligations whatsoever to exchange American currency for gold. In the same article from which we have already quoted, Alex Callinicos states: “The Nixon administration’s to take the dollar off gold in August 1971 placed the international monetary system on a pure dollar standard” (2002, 259). From 1971 onwards, American currency ceased to represent any objective value – it is nothing but worthless green paper. In other words, as of today, the functioning of world’s economy is based on essentially absurdist principles, which is exactly the reason why worldwide economic crisis of 2009 was bound to happen. What it signifies is that, unless some form of World Government is being established, world’s economy will cease to function. Therefore, the reason why the term “global governance” has been coined up in the first place, is to provide a conceptual validity for the process of world’s free-market economy becoming increasingly regulated (planned).
This is why; as time goes by, the international economic organizations, created after the end of WW2, gradually adopt the functions of World Government’s branches. Ever since nineties, these organizations’ operational activities are being increasingly concerned with how to get rid of tons and tons of green paper in banking systems’ circulation and with how to endow internationally-based legislations with legally bounding power. For example, despite the fact that the official purpose of IMF’s existence is being declared providing financial assistance to the “developing” nations, it is namely ensuring the vitality of Western economies, which represents this organization’s foremost agenda. By supplying “developing” countries with credits, IMF is able to kill two rabbits with one shot: keeping the rates inflation in Western countries down and protecting the interests of Western transnational corporations in the Third World.
In his article “Globalization and the Politics of International Finance: The Stiglitz Verdict”, Kaushik Basu states: “IMF represented Wall Street’s interests mediated through the Treasury, even when it was working ostensibly to help poor nations. United States, with over 17 percent of the votes in the IMF, worked hard to “help the special interests of Wall Street” (2003, 892). This is exactly the reason why it is quite impossible not to laugh, while observing Third World leaders’ pathetic attempts to act if they truly do represent some independent nations. For example, the political developments on African continent, cannot even be discussed as thing in itself – all of Africa’s “presidents”, “prime ministers”, “kings” and “emperors” are nothing but lowly puppets, who act on behalf of IMF, because it is namely the IMF’s officials who are being in charge of running the economies of Third World nations de facto. Moreover, during the course of recent decades, IMF’s bureaucrats had found themselves in position of defining the rates of economic development even in post-industrialized Western countries.
The same can be said about another international organization – WTO. Despite the fact that it lacks formal attributes of quasi-independence, it is namely this organization which along with IMF now dictates national governments what economic policies they should pursue in their countries. For example, in 2008, WTO has granted a large financial tranche to Ukraine, while requiring from Ukrainian government to cut subsidies to state-owned sectors of country’s economy and to reduce elder people’s pensions by half. And, Ukrainian government had no choice but to oblige.
In his article “Globalization Talk at Davos”, while referring to World Economic Forum that had taken place in Davos on January 30, 2009, Thomas Eddlem talks about it as an attempt of world’s Plutocracy to legitimize its strive to take over the world: “What Merkel’s (German Chancellor) proposal would mean in concrete terms is global government (which Globalists call “global governance”) and the creation of this global government through various international institutions under the umbrella of an empowered United Nations and its Millennium Goals” (2009). Yet, it is namely the continuous existence of such international organization as UN, which better then anything else provide us with the insight on what would be the actual realities of living in “brave borderless world”.
As we have mentioned earlier, ever since 1999, the notion of national sovereignty had ceased to represent a metaphysical importance, in the eyes of international community’s members. This is the reason why recent years saw a dramatic increase in the number of international conflicts, with UN proving its utter impotence as an arbiter, while addressing these conflicts. In other words – there is not even a single rationale-based reason why UN should not be disbanded. Yet, this does not prevent UN from continuing to accumulate an enormous wealth and from exerting its influence in the areas beyond its executive authority. Just as it is the case with international organizations mentioned earlier, today’s UN should be discussed in terms of being a quasi-state, because it represents the biggest bureaucratic apparatus on the face of the Earth.
It has become a common practice for even UN’s lowest-ranking officials to use private jets, while travelling internationally. These people spend millions of millions of dollars to hold a variety of meaningless conferences and symposiums, simply to socialize with each other, while eventually growing to believe in their own importance. They never experience any shortage of money – U.S. alone contributes $3.5 billion to U.N. on annual basis. When we apply logical reasoning, in order to assess the purpose for UN’s continuous existence, it will appear that this existence is being solely concerned with setting a stage for the emergence of much advertised “world new order”, when a small number of “experts on tolerance” are going to declare themselves a World Government.
When this happens, there will be public rallies, taking place throughout the world, with people expressing their protest against the establishment of World Government – this is why national governments in Western countries, which act as puppets of international Plutocracy, are now being in such a rush to introduce more and more “hate laws”. For example, in such countries as Britain, France, Canada and Germany, one can easily be sentenced to 5-7 years in jail for simply suggesting that Jews were not only the people who had suffered during the course of WW2 (the “crime of historical revisionism”).
Thus, it appears that there is nothing new about the idea of “global governance” – it is namely cosmopolitical people’s greed for power, which used to drive them to promote such an idea, throughout the history. However, those who possess even a basic knowledge of economics, physics and psychology, cannot help referring to this anti-scientific idea as to what it really – one among many intellectual byproducts of people’s existential inadequacy. The current worldwide economic crisis is nothing but a result of WTO, IMF, and UN’s combined activities, over the course of years – when international organizations begin to exercise authority over the functioning of national economies, it becomes only the matter of short time before these economies’ effective functioning would come to an end. In the concluding part of our paper, we are going to confirm the legitimacy of this statement.
Global governance and science
What is the most striking feature of those academic articles that glorify the concept of “global governance”, besides the fact that it is namely the representatives of “chosen people” who seem to be advertising this concept with much more enthusiasm, as compared to neo-Liberal “goyms”? It is the fact that the authors of these articles try to make point in sounding particularly sophisticate, despite nonsensical essence of their suggestions.
For example, in his article “What is Global Governance”, Lawrence Finkelsten states: “Global governance is governing, without sovereign authority… Global governance is doing internationally what governments do at home. This definition is concerned with purposive acts, not tacit arrangements. It emphasizes what it is being done, rather than the constitutional basis for doing it. It is neutral as between the activities and their outcomes” (1995, 369). According Finkelstein, “global governance” is being conducted by an “international community”. In a similar manner, Finkestein’s spiritual predecessors – Communist commissars, used to define the form of political governing in USSR as “people’s democracy”, while suggesting it were namely Russian workers, who were endowed with a full political authority in Soviet Union, even though that prior to 1960, Russian “proletarians” were not even allowed to apply for Soviet passports.
Given our earlier suggestion as to Marxism and neo-Liberalism being essentially the sublimation of Jewish existential anxieties, conceptualized in the form of political theories, it does not represent much of a challenge to realize what would be the actual consequences of “global governance”, if applied in practice – degradation, destruction and death.
And, the reason for this is simple – apparently, despite promoters’ of “global governance” belief in their own sophistication and progressiveness, they could not understand one simple thing – the principle of “global governing” contradicts basic laws of Thermodynamics, which fully apply to human societies. “Global governance” is nothing but euphemism to the concept of centralized (Socialist/Communist) governing, which implies strictly hierarchical subtleties of such governing. However, as we are all well aware of – the efficiency of hierarchical systems of governance is being undermined in exponential progression to the flow of time. This is because; such form of governance can only address newly emerged social, political and economic problems by the mean of expanding the size of its bureaucratic apparatus. However, it is solely working on behalf of their personal well-being, which had always represented bureaucrats’ foremost agenda. This is why, after having served the purpose of solving a particular problem, the bureaucratic organization, designed specifically for that, never gets to be disbanded –it continues to function for its own sake.
It appears that the history of Socialism and Communism in 20th century had not taught anything the contemporary apologists of “governless governance”, who promote the idea that humanity would benefit enormously from being ruled by anonymous “experts”, representing World Government. Moreover, it also appears that many ordinary people are being also incapable of assessing the actual essence of Globalization through the lenses of rationale. For example, despite the fact that Globalization often gets to be praised for “making world flat” and “bringing people together”, even the citizens of Western countries are now being required to undergo fingerprinting procedure, before they can be allowed to travel internationally – so much for the concept of “brave borderless world”.
Thus, the ultimate conclusion of this paper can be formulated as follows: the terms “neo-Liberalism” and “global governance” are simply new items on the long list of Plutocracy’s ideological inventions, designed to conceal its agenda of taking over world’s natural resources and reducing 99% of world’s population into slaves. The ways in which representatives of world’s financial elite go about trying to justify such their agenda are of very little relevance.
Basu, Kaushik “Globalization and the Politics of International Finance: The Stiglitz Verdict”. Journal of Economic Literature 41.3 (2003): 885-899. Print.
Callinicos, Alex “Marxism and Global Governance”. Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (eds.) Governing Globalization. Cambridge: Polity, 2002. Print.
Eddlem, Thomas “Globalization Talk at Davos”. 2009. New America. 8. Web.
Finkelstein, Lawrence “What Is Global Governance?”. Global Governance 1.3 (1995): 367-372. Print.
Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. 1848. The Australian National University. Web.
Mitchell, Timothy “Dreamland: The Neoliberalism of Your Desires”. Middle East Report 210.5 (1999): 28-33. Print.
Ohmae, Kenichi. Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing, 2005. Print.
Perdana, Ari “The Ghost of Neoliberalism”. 2009. The Jakarta Post. Web.
Philpott, Daniel “Sovereignty: an Introduction and Brief History”. Journal of International Affairs 48 (Winter 1995): 353-68. Print.
Strauss, Mark “Antiglobalism’s Jewish Problem”. Foreign Policy 139 (2003): 58-67. Print.