Subject 1. "GLOBALIZATION, THE END OF ONE MYTH".

Dear comrades! Now everybody is speaking about "globalization". But by the way they use this term it is clear they do not understand its real economic substance. The simplest confirmation of such situation is that there is a group called "Antiglobalists" in labor movement. So what does the term mean?

Obviously at first big business ideologists invented this term. Then union bureaucrats and labor aristocrats used it and put it in mass circulation. 

 The big business ideologists tell us that globalization is an economical integration of national economics and an internationalization of global market, that it is a progress and achievement of capitalism. And we must admit that they are right in their own way. What is a progress in the view of big business?

In the age of commodity production all commodity producers are forced to develop capitalist production by power of compulsory law of competition. So one capital are "devouring" and subjugating another. For big business such "devouring" of rival, its addition to his on capital is a progress and an achievement a la capitalism. In result of such progress - a victory of competition - the capital is rising, it is exploiting more workers and getting bigger market for its goods. And this means rising profits.

Thus the progress a la capitalism for big business is rising profit. For workers and all exploited people such progress in the age of commodity production can bring only multiple strengthing of exploitation. It is clear then that such achievement is an achievement only for class of big bourgeoisie.

On the other hand we can admit that the process of "devouring" capitals - their joining up and subjugating to more economical powerful is a process of capital integration, even though in the age of commodity production such integration are compulsory by the law of competition.

And if there is such process of capitalist integration between various national capitals - why not call such integration an internationalization of capitals? We must admit in this instance too that the big business ideologists are right. Economical subjugation one national capital to another, bigger and stronger, is the process of integration of underdeveloped national economics to advanced ones, is the process of internationalization of national capitals. Such integration and internationalization of underdeveloped national economics is bringing a rise of advanced nation's capital and opportunity to exploit bigger numbers of laborers and working people, and as a result - to multiply its profit.

Now it is right to ask: did not we see similar process of globalization in previous ages? Was not before any World War there something resembling such globalization?

The big business ideologists allege that earlier such internationalization was accomplished by political means of imperialist colonization, war aggression and deprivation underdeveloped nations of their political independence. Now, they arguing, "the process of economical integration is peaceful". So for them it is a difference between so called industrial capitalism colonization and so called "progressive globalization" in the age of postindustrial capitalism. Let us not forget that such arguments is ones of big bourgeoisie class, which by every possible means is trying to lead workers from class warfare to class collaboration. 

It is worth mention that the big business ideologists use such arguments to mislead working masses, suggesting to them that capitalism became a civilized one, that capitalist society is not based on class antagonism any more. So the economical situation of exploited laborers and working people is worsening daily not as a result of sheer existence of capitalism but because of greedy multinationals.

So the big business ideologists are calling to laborers and working people to counteract and establish "democratic control" of these multinationals' and national government activities. Is that not a call to class collaboration?

So what does the term "globalization" mean? To answer this question we must remember what is imperialism. Imperialism is a highest stage of capitalism. What economical processes preceded transition of capitalism to imperialism? There were merger of industrial and bank capitals in advanced capitalist states, formation of financial capital, national monopoly capital and financial oligarchy.

The process of transformation of capitalism to imperialism is a process of monopoly financial capital going out to global space for financial "devouring" of national capitals and subjugating of underdeveloped national economics. Such "devouring" can be achieved by both peaceful and non-peaceful (military) means. So it is right to say that imperialistic policy of capitalism is economical policy of financial oligarchy of advanced capitalist states for "devouring" of national capitals and subjugating of underdeveloped national economics. It brings ruin of national industry and agriculture of such nations, free extorting of their natural resources, double exploitation, social degeneration and mass extinction of working people.

Comrades, in this respect (such as of political economy) the concept of imperialism and of globalization is in effect the same. They are identical.

So called peacefulness of modern imperialism we should explain not by civilized nature of modern capitalism but by inability of national bourgeoisie of economical underdeveloped states to counteract in competition on global market to the World's financial oligarchy. It can be explained by enormous technological advantage that the advanced capitalist states achieved because of multiple scientific and technological revolutions in the second half of 20-th century. And what is more, we can see the national bourgeoisie of economical underdeveloped states voluntary submitting to the World's financial oligarchy for preserving its political power in its own state.

And even if national governments are trying to impede subjugating of their states to the West capital, imperialistic bourgeoisie without any hesitation resorts to its states enormous military power in any corner of the World to secure its interests as much as possible. We can see examples of it in aggressive wars of USA against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we can conclude that modern process of globalization is a process of colonization of underdeveloped nations by means of establishing their economical dependence on advanced capitalist states. So political independence of such colonized nations becomes a political fiction, even though they are still formally political independent. The core of globalization is competition between financial magnates of advanced capitalist states, in way of such competition (that is, colonization of underdeveloped nations) they  are trying to raise the power of their capital.

So, globalization is an inevitable and natural effect of competition between financial magnates of advanced capitalist states. And everybody calling oneself "an antiglobalist" must pay attention to the fact that by such act he/she is taking upon oneself to tame spontaneous powers of the compulsory law of competition! Does not that mean one is trying in limits of capitalism and commodity production to achieve a utopia: by means of establishing "democratic control" of multinationals' activities to reconcile financial magnates of advanced capitalist states and abolish their competition?! Just that way the antiglobalists are going to cancel unfavorable effects of such competition for working people. But it is an ideological failure of the antiglobalist movement, because the idea of establishing "democratic control" of multinationals' activities is a pure utopia and a double-dyed opportunism in labor movement! In limits of capitalism and commodity production such struggle is fighting windmills. It is possible to abolish capitalist competition and its effect for working people only by means of abolishing the capitalism itself!

The ideological failure of the antiglobalist movement is a sign of crisis of labor movement. And the first step out of this crisis is an establishment Left International of Workers taking an anti-capitalist stand!
_____________________________________________________________________

Vladimir Vorob`ev, the co-president of “Defense of Labour”

E-mail:   anzherka@front.ru  Tel: 7 38453 2 41 76.
 
 

Your opinion