Reference no: EM133231856
Globalization as an ideology
On the other hand, for those who identify this concept, rather than with an empirically contrastable phenomenon, with an ideology, globalization would not be so much the result of a purely economic process, more or less autonomous, relating to the gradual integration of markets on a world scale, but the result of a series of decisions by the sector of the world political and economic elite that has adopted the ideological program of the world.S. neoliberalism. In this vein, Ulrich Beck (2000: 100-1), for example, has defined globalization as 'the process by which nation states are weakened by transnational forces and actors', andglobalismas the "ideology that seeks the supplanting of politics by the market". Conceived as an ideology, globalization would not be the consequence of world economic dynamics, but the cause of that dynamic being in this form, and not another. In other words, it would be neoliberal ideology that would have caused the rise of financial capitalism, not the proper dynamics of financial capitalism that would have brought globalization.
The vision of globalization that Ignacio Ramonet has been promoting from the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique is, without a doubt, paradigmatic of this last conception. In what can be considered an excellent summary of the conventional view held by the anti-globalization movement, Ra monet has defined globalization as "an attack on the social order from three fronts: the economic, with the imposition of market logic; that of information, with the standardization of messages and the suppression of criticism; and the military, which represents the end of the era of human rights and the extension of AMERICAN hegemony to the entire planet." The true "axis of evil", concludes Ramonet (2002) in response to George W. Bush's famous speech that preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003, "is not Iran, Iraq and North Korea, but the Monetary Fon do, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization: an abhorrent triumvirate that is causing massive havoc".
For many, the term "globalization" has thus become synonymous with a process of uniformation on a planetary scale of political, economic, social and cultural structures and their patterns of relationship and exchange. John Cray (2000) is the one who has perhaps raised this vision in more detail. In his analysis, neoliberalism was imposed in the 80s in the United States and the United Kingdom by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, respectively, after having completed the assault and dismantling of the European welfare states and their programs of income redistribution and promotion of equal opportunities. In the 90s, Cray argues, this model tried to impose itself on a global scale under the pretext of being the only one that could guarantee economic growth.
But, in reality, advanced capitalism is less than what is thought: as evidenced by the Nordic countries (which have high growth rates and good levels of employment, as well as a large supply of social benefits) or makes visible the Asian model of development (which has achieved very important economic growth rates in recent decades), there are many combinations of equity and social spending compatible with a competitive economy. Undoubtedly, the Anglo-Saxon model generates a little more growth, but also more inequality. In fact, according to data from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP 2000), inequalities increased in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 90s, coinciding with a time of economic growth, but not in Europe and Asia, despite the economic crisis. For this reason, any diagnosis on the long-term sustainability of the different economic and social models that have been configured must necessarily remain open.