Dear rn, cj, and Bcc friends, I believe the following TOC and Introduction are final-final, but comments continue to be welcome. I hope you enjoy. A formatted version is on the website, and a final-final Chapter 1 will show up there today or tomorrow. Reviewers have continued to put in dedicated effort, with detailed critiques and suggestions -- many thanks. This phase of the project has been highly collaborative, leading to a much better product than I would have been able to do on my own. This material can be forwarded, for non-commercial use. yours in solidarity, rkm http://cyberjournal.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Achieving a Livable, Peaceful World A radical response to globalization a book in progress - draft 2 Copyright 1998 by Richard K. Moore Latest update: 2 December 1998 comments to: •••@••.••• Summary of Contents [1 page] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction [5100 words] - Globalization and Western society: nations betrayed Part I - Corporate rule and global ruin: understanding the dynamics of today's world Chapter 1 [11,000 words] - Evolution of Western power: from national rivalries to collective imperialism, by way of American hegemony Chapter 2 - Evolution of elite power: from kingdoms to corporate rule, by way of republics Chapter 3 - Evolution of capitalism: the growth imperative, societal engineering, and the finite Earth Part II - Envisioning a livable world: an inquiry into democracy, sustainability, and world order Introduction Chapter 4 - Sustainable societies: a realizable necessity Chapter 5 - Democracy: harmonization, not factionalism Chapter 6 - Stable world order: collaborative internationalism and the trap of world government Part III - Achieving a livable world: a strategic framework for global transformation Introduction Chapter 7 - Building a global movement: learning from history and moving beyond class struggle Chapter 8 - Engaging the corporate regime: anticipating elite responses and avoiding co-option Chapter 9 - The Democratic Renaissance: making the transition to a livable world ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction - Globalization and Western society: nations betrayed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In May 1998, at the United Nations building in Geneva, US President Bill Clinton opened his keynote address with the words, "Globalization is not a policy choice; it is a fact". The occasion was the fiftieth anniversary of GATT (General Agreement Tariffs and Trade), the first of the postwar free-trade agreements. His statement suggests a number of questions: What is globalization? Where did it come from? Where is it heading? What does it mean to ordinary people in different parts of the world? What does it mean for national sovereignty, and for constitutional democracy? Whose interests does it serve? Why does the world's most powerful leader say that even he has no choice about it? Is globalization really inevitable? Market forces -- old wine in new bottles ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ At the heart of globalization is the doctrine of free trade and a belief in the virtue of market forces. This doctrine, enunciated most clearly in 1776 by the Scotsman Adam Smith, came to dominate the Western world in the nineteenth century(1). Economists called it "laissez-faire capitalism", and philosophers justified it as "Social Darwinism". Smith spoke of market forces as an "invisible hand": if each individual and business pursues their own self-interests, then a kind of "invisible hand" will, theoretically, guide the overall economy to society's best advantage. Smith backed up his conclusions with an early example of systems analysis, showing how the forces of supply and demand act themselves out in the marketplace, with beneficial effect. There is, however, an all-important proviso: Smith's analysis requires that society provide sufficient guidance -- market regulation -- to ensure fair and open competition. If monopolies are allowed to arise, they upset the workings of the invisible hand and they amount to a form of tyranny. For the "invisible hand" of the market to work for societal benefit, government must provide an overseeing "guiding hand" in the form of regulation and anti-monopoly enforcement. People of the same trade seldom meet together... but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations Wealthy industrialists, in the nineteenth century and again today, were happy to adopt Smith's notion of unfettered markets, because it maximized their freedom to make money. But they were also happy to ignore his warnings about government regulation. The laissez-faire doctrine is one of unregulated free markets -- a perversion of Smith's model, with the tyrannical consequences Smith anticipated. The result then, as now, was the creation of powerful monopolies -- large enterprises which dominate and manipulate markets to their own advantage. In economic theory, free markets are about fair exchanges among large numbers of small producers and consumers. But in political reality, the free-market doctrine results in the concentration of wealth into a few hands. In the US, the nineteenth-century laissez-faire period is sometimes called the "robber baron" era. Magnates like John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Andrew Carnegie (US Steel) built gigantic economic empires. Such "robber barons" forced competitors out of business or bought them out. They monopolized transport, energy, and finance, and charged "whatever the traffic will bear". With their wealth, they exerted considerable power over government policy -- Rockefeller bragged about how many Governors were "in his pocket". Economic power was translated into political power, which only served to further consolidate economic power. In the nineteenth century, national economies were being integrated and monopolized by colorful robber barons; today, faceless transnational corporations (TNC's) are integrating and monopolizing the global economy. Once again "free competition" is the rhetoric while concentration of wealth and power is the reality(2). The masters make the rules, for the wise men and the fools... - Bob Dylan, "It's Alright Ma (I'm only bleeding)" Capitalist elites play a central role in the dynamics of a laissez-faire era. It is through their political influence that the laissez-faire doctrine becomes government policy, and it is through their monopolistic ambitions that they come to dominate economies. The reality of a laissez-faire society is the exploitation of society by a wealthy, capitalist elite(3). The free-market rhetoric justifies their freedom of action, but it does not deliver the societal benefits that Smith envisioned. The nineteenth century was a time of widespread exploitation of child labor, poor wages, long working hours, dangerous working conditions, no pensions or sick-pay, dire poverty, boom-and-bust economic cycles, giant monopolies and trusts, super-wealthy magnates, and government corruption. During the Irish Famine of the 1840's, while hundreds of thousands were starving, Britain refused on principle to provide assistance: such assistance would interfere, said the British Government, with market forces. Meanwhile, British landowners exported tons of food daily from Irish ports(4). Today, as disease and famine infest the third-world, market forces are offered once again by the West as the prescribed solution. And once again coffee and beef plantations, for example, export tons of products daily from the same countries which are experiencing famine(5). Today, as then, the rhetoric of free markets is used to justify exploitation of those at the bottom, while at the same time giant corporations exempt themselves from the harshness of free-market discipline. They instead avail themselves of government subsidies, lucrative government contracts, expensive bail-outs, and favored tax treatment(6). An investment fund for billionaires, "Long Term Capital Management", got in trouble recently due to its own unwise gambling in the markets. The US Federal Reserve quickly and quietly organized a $3.5 billion bail-out fund. In contrast, when a hurricane left 10,000 dead and millions homeless in Central America a few months later, through no fault of their own, the West's rescue package came to a mere $200 million -- less than six percent of the bail-out figure(7). The conditions of the nineteenth century laissez-faire era were so deplorable that massive popular movements arose against the regime of capitalist domination(8). Labor unions, socialist movements, and reformist groups worked stridently for higher wages and better working conditions, the busting up of monopolies and trusts, regulation of banking and industry, and the reform of government. Suppression of union movements was brutal, with the government and police usually siding with management during strikes and disputes. Whenever a depression or major recession occurred, which happened regularly, these popular movements gained added strength. The laissez-faire era gradually gave over, in fits and starts, to an era of reform. Capitalism continued as the primary engine of the economy, but most Western governments began to impose a "guiding hand", as Adam Smith had insisted they should, and as John Maynard Keynes and others rediscovered. Competition was re-introduced where monopoly had prevailed, and many of the reforms which workers and others had fought for were eventually implemented(9). Postwar prosperity and the Crisis of Democracy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This tide of friendlier capitalism reached its peak in the postwar (post-1945) era. In the US, there had been Roosevelt's New Deal, and when the war was over, returning soldiers received educational and housing subsidies. The US had effective labor protections, anti-trust legislation, regulated industry, stabilized finances, a Social Security pension program, and an economic policy aimed at general prosperity and low unemployment. The savings and loan industry was established to make home ownership available to millions(10). In France, the Front Populaire (1936-38) had already achieved considerable social gains(11). In postwar Britain and Europe extensive social programs were implemented, including free health care, housing assistance, and government operation of transport and utilities. Corporate profits soared, and the taxes they paid kept budget deficits within manageable bounds. Western prosperity seemed to be climbing ever-upward, and the prosperity was being shared by large segments of the population -- particularly the burgeoning middle classes(12). By 1948, the Bretton Woods agreements had led to a stable international financial system, backed up by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)(13). Major currencies were given fixed exchange rates to the dollar, and the dollar was fixed at $35 per ounce of gold. Western nations enforced controls over the flows of capital across their borders, and the IMF and World Bank acted as flywheels to stabilize international finance. The Bretton Woods arrangements served as a "guiding hand" to the global economy, and the hyper-inflation and currency collapses which followed World War I were avoided, at least in the West. In the postwar era it seemed that capitalist and popular interests had achieved a mutually beneficial political arrangement in the West. With this friendlier version of capitalism, one might have expected Western populations to be grateful and content. But at the crest of Western popular prosperity and well being, in the sixties and seventies, massive movements arose against what was called "the establishment"(14). The civil-rights, anti-Vietnam War, environmental, and "New Left" movements gained strength and achieved political influence. Middle- and upper-class youths, the prime beneficiaries of postwar prosperity, championed these protest movements. They questioned the actions of their governments, the organization of their societies and even the motives of their elders. Those elders -- who still commanded the heights -- reacted with shock and anger. And perhaps as well with fear. Abraham Maslow (1908-70), with his "hierarchy of needs", can perhaps help explain this postwar youth rebellion. According to his observations and research, people must have their basic needs satisfied before they pay much attention to their higher needs(15). The most basic needs are physiological, such as for food and sleep. After that comes security, membership in family or group, and self esteem and recognition. Only after those are all satisfied are people likely to worry about their highest needs, which Maslow described as "self-actualization". The prosperous and rebellious youth of the sixties were raised in the postwar era. Unlike their parents, who had lived through depression and war, they rarely had to worry about their basic needs. They were the first Western generation, since industrialization at least, where a majority was able to indulge themselves with "self-actualization"(16). And, significantly, they were a generation that had been raised on the grand rhetoric of justice, universal democracy, the end of imperialism, and the defeat of dictatorship. Apparently, the youth of the sixties believed fervently in the rhetoric they had been raised on, and given the freedom to "self-actualize", they seemed determined to make the rhetoric come true. Some chose to "drop out" and indulge in personal "self actualization", but many others became politically active. "Freedom Riders" risked their lives to assist the Civil Rights movement in the American South. Students held strikes and "teach in's", and physically attacked university facilities that were associated with militarism. Counselling networks were set up in the US to help young people understand their rights as war protesters and learn how they could avoid being sent to Vietnam. Globally popular entertainers such as Bob Dylan and Joan Baez developed the protest-song genre, and sang out blistering moral attacks on racism, exploitation, and military adventurism. These kinds of activism, largely non-violent, created a potential crisis for the capitalist system, as the youth generation grew up and eventually would become a voting majority. If they retained their idealism, and their rejection of materialist values, it did not bode well for maximizing capitalist growth and development. Elite planners took note of this crisis. In 1975, Samuel P. Huntington, an esteemed member of the influential Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, offered his analysis in a paper called The Crisis of Democracy(17). According to Huntington, democratic societies "cannot work" unless the citizenry is "passive". The "democratic surge of the 1960s" represented an "excess of democracy", which must be reduced if governments are to carry out their "traditional policies", both domestic and foreign. Huntington's priorities are clear: the capitalist system comes first, government's role is to sustain it, and "democracy", whatever that may be, cannot be allowed to interfere. That is to say, the purpose of government in Huntington's eyes is to control the people, not to represent them. In 1980, Alan Wolfe, in the anthology Trilateralism, wrote: The warning that comes across clearly from a reading of The Crisis of Democracy is that some people with access to the center of power now understand that the change in popular attitudes toward government will necessitate a rapid dismantling of the whole structure of liberal democracy(18). Note: "Liberal" has nearly opposite meanings in the US and Europe. The European sense of "liberal" is similar to the American term "conservative", while the American Heritage dictionary defines "liberal" as "political views or policies that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of governmental power to promote social programs". Wolfe uses the American sense of the word. The term "neoliberal", of European origin, is essentially a synonym for "laissez-faire" -- the doctrine of unregulated free markets. There are good reasons to take notice of Wolf's warning, regarding the "rapid dismantling of the whole structure of liberal democracy". For one thing, Huntington is indeed a person with "access to the center of power". Ideas published by elite think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) frequently become US policy in later administrations. In old issues of Council's Foreign Affairs journal, and in the memorandums of the Council, one can find the origins of many of the most significant US policy decisions of the twentieth century, such as when to enter World War II, and how to restructure the postwar world(19). Not every idea generated by elite think tanks is adopted as policy, but there is considerable evidence that Huntington's Crisis of Democracy reflected a consensus of elite thinking. Since his article was published in 1975, there have been several radical shifts in Western policy, each of which has served either to undermine democratic institutions, to disempower nations, or to dismantle the structures of society itself. These policy shifts are in fact rapidly "dismantling of the whole structure of liberal democracy". (continued...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
