The
crisis of the ideology of neoliberal
globalization
*
TAKIS
FOTOPOULOS
(12.03.2017)
Abstract:
In this
article it is argued that it is not only
globalization itself, which is generally
recognized to be in a state of serious
crisis but that the ideology used
to ‘justify’ (supposedly objectively)
neoliberal globalization seems also to be
going through a parallel terminal crisis. It
is shown that the cause of this crisis is
that this ideology never passed the ‘reality
test’, despite the strenuous efforts of the
globalist ideologues. It was this
recognition and the parallel success of
neo-nationalist movements in attracting the
masses of the working class victims of
globalization from the globalist ‘Left’,
which has led the latter to invent the myth
of racism in order to smear the Brexit
revolutions in UK, USA and beyond.
It
is generally recognized today that
globalization goes through its most serious
crisis since it developed into the present
New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal
globalization at the end of the 20th
century, as even the flagship of globalist
‘Left’ admitted very recently reflecting the
views of multinational corporations’ chief
executives.[1]I am talking of course about
neoliberal globalization because a
capitalist globalization can only be
neoliberal, as it impliesopen and ‘liberalized’ markets for
capital, labor, goods and services—the
infamous ‘four freedoms’ of the EU
Maastricht Treaty. No wonder the globalist
academics and politicians, i.e. all those
taking globalization for granted, have been
trying hard lately to counter the widespread
and growing discontent against it, which has
already taken the form of pure anger. This
anger became plain as day in the Brexit
revolution, as well as in the results of the
US Presidential election, which established
a pattern expected to be repeated shortly in
the forthcoming elections in France, Italy
and so on.
This
pattern, as I described it in my latest
book,[2]
involves, in the first stage, the launching
of a frontal attack by the transnational
elites and the local elites associated with
them against those questioning in any way
the NWO and its institutions, such as the
EU, using frequently the ‘fear weapon’
(aiming at the feeling of insecurity that
any radical change inevitably generates to
most people) but, also, pure lies and
slanders about the supposed racist, if not
‘fascist’, nature of the anti-EU forces and
so on. Then, a barrage of polls follows
which, invariably, predict the defeat of the
political forces questioning globalization.
These predictions are not simply the result
of data manipulation by the pollsters (who
are usually funded by the economic and
political elites with a clear interest in
influencing voters) but may also express
their inability to establish the voters’
true intentions —some of whom, clearly
terrorized by the mass establishment
campaign, hide their real intentions of
voting. Finally, at the last stage,
catharsis follows with the reversal of
all expectations and the victory of the
anti-establishment (i.e. the anti-NWO)
forces.
The ideology of
globalization vs. reality
The
ideology of globalization, which is of
course the dominant ideology today, is
simply the set of ideas and beliefs
which are used to ‘justify’ (supposedly
objectively) neoliberal globalization in all
its aspects, i.e. economic, political,
cultural and so on.This is the
ideology which one can easily find in the
publications of the IMF, the World Bank
etc., which is repeated ad nauseam by the
establishment economists, politicians,
academics (who brainwash accordingly their
own students) and of course the mass media
of the transnational and local elites that
express the interests of the minority of the
world population benefiting from neoliberal
globalization. Inevitably, this ideology is
increasingly resented today, either directly
or indirectly, by the victims of
globalization, i.e. the vast majority of the
world population.
This ideology is
usually presented under a pseudo-scientific
cover, reflecting the dubious scientific
nature of economics as such. This nature of
economics became particularly evident in the
latest two economic crises (in the late
1990s and, particularly, in 2008-9) which no
economist has successfully predicted. This
is of course something that reflects the
fact that economics (and I am talking about
both orthodox and Marxian economics) was
never a science in the strict sense of the
word as I have shown elsewhere[3]
and most philosophers of science agree on
this.
The
basis of the ideology of globalization is
that the opening and liberalization of
markets, (or the removal, in IMF parlance,
of ‘structural deficiencies’ or barriers),
which are due to inflexibilities of the
market mechanism and barriers to free
competition, would boost competitiveness and
therefore growth and employment. Such
barriers that were mentioned in the Cecchini
Report,[4]
on which the official ideology of the single
market for the EU rested, were the various
physical, technical and fiscal barriers that
were assumed to obstruct the flow of
commodities, capital and labor. As regards
to the capital market in particular, freeing
this market from any controls, that is, the
creation of conditions for the easy and
unrestricted flow of capital between
countries, was considered to be a basic
requirement in this process. This is why the
abolition of all foreign exchange controls
has always been considered an essential
condition for the `Single European Market’
of 1993.
However, the most important barriers were
not the ones explicitly mentioned in the
Report, but those implied by it and, in
particular, the emphasis it placed on
competition. These implied barriers were the
‘institutional’ barriers to free
competition, which had been introduced by
the social-democratic consensus (1945-1975)
and which the agreement for the Single
Market undertook to eliminate — a task
brought to completion by the Maastricht
treaty. Such institutional barriers were the
Keynesian type of state interventionism to
secure full employment and the large welfare
state that created fiscal and therefore
competitiveness problems, the labor unions’
restrictive practices’ and the nationalized
industries, which did not always act on the
basis of micro-economic criteria to raise
economic efficiency.
Yet,
the systematic removal of these ‘barriers’,
that the opening and liberalization of
markets entailed, far from boosting income
and employment, it led to massive
inequalities and chronic underemployment
through the vast expansion of part time
work, zero contract hours and so on.
Furthermore, the opening and liberalization
of markets has led to a tremendous
concentration of economic power,
which in the last two decades has taken the
dimensions of hyper-globalization. A
significant recent study[5]
on globalization, among others, confirms the
above trends. The main feature of this
hyper-globalization has been the rise of
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) that, by
2009, numbered more than 80,000, accounting
for about two-thirds of world trade.
However, hyper-globalization is beneficial
only to small sections of the world
population, whereas the vast majority of
people are victims. This was
the inevitable outcome of the opening and
liberalization of markets that has led to a
huge concentration of power in the hands of
TNCs, as scientific studies, such as a 2011
study by the
New
Scientist, have established.[6]
This study, using a database listing 37
million companies and investors worldwide,
identified 43,060 TNCs and the share
ownerships linking them. It revealed that,
of these TNCs, just 1,318 core companies,
through interlocking ownerships, own 80% of
global revenues. Furthermore, they found
that just
147 companies (i.e. less than 1 per
cent of the network)
form a ‘super entity’, controlling 40 per
cent of the wealth of the entire
network!
Furthermore, the supposed benefits of
globalization to non-advanced capitalist
countries such as China, India, Brazil etc.
is in reality a myth.What happens is that TNCs are
involved in a huge pursuit of the places all
over the globe which secure the minimization
of the cost of production in terms of labor
cost in particular but also taxes and
similar company costs. Multinationals are, rightly (from their own
point of view), responding as quickly as
possible to those new demands and, as a
result, we are witnessing a level of
international outsourcing that we could
never have imagined. As it was observed by
an expert on the field:
“‘Made in’ labels mean little nowadays:
companies based in the west often have their
production plants elsewhere and use
components sourced from third countries; and
are financed by investors in yet other
countries. If that were not complex enough,
when countries impose trade barriers and
erect controls, companies simply move
overnight. Regulators and governments often
do not stand a chance.”[7]
So,
in the NWO, it is no longer nation-states
that rule the world, fighting among
themselves for the division of world
markets, but rather the transnational
corporations. It is these huge oligopolies
that are always the victors, irrespective of
where they base their activities. Therefore,
the fact that today China or India look like
economic superpowers (or rising superpowers)
is not, in effect, an economic miracle but
rather an economic mirage. If any of these
countries stopped offering the ‘comparative
advantages’ they presently do, particularly
in terms of cheap production cost they offer
to the TNCs, then the economic miracle would
end overnight — i.e. as soon as the
TNCs move to one of the other countries
begging them to invest in their own area.
The
mechanism through which the real incomes of
the victims of globalization have declined
works through the lifting of any significant
social controls on markets imposed
in the past to protect society and
environment from markets. The effective
lifting of social controls aiming at the
protection of society from the markets means
that transnational corporations are today
free to move capital and commodities all
over the world, while having to face
regulatory controls only. Furthermore, the
‘liberalization’ of labor markets, which is
part of the same process, implies
effectively the lifting of social controls
to protect labor, for the sake of attracting
foreign capital, (i.e. the transnational
corporations), and making the economy more
‘competitive’. ‘Flexible’ labor is the norm
in this process, i.e. a vast expansion of
part-time or occasional labor, zero hours’
contracts etc. - all of which have the
effect of artificially reducing the level of
unemployment at the expense of real incomes,
i.e. incomes which are essentially frozen in
real terms.[8]
Furthermore, liberalization of labor markets
meant also the opening of borders that
facilitated the movement of labor,
particularly among the EU countries, through
the Lisbon and Schengen Treaties. The result
of this was the present migration crisis in
the EU that threatens its very foundations.
The EU elites are of course in favor of
labor market liberalization, so that real
wages are suppressed in the EU area but the
precondition for such a policy to be
effective is that they would be in control
of the labor flows. It is exactly the
violation of this precondition that has
created the present crisis.
Therefore, coming back to the economic
‘miracles’ of countries such as China and
India, in fact,they are both characterized by
hundreds of millions of starving people and
just a few hundred billionaires, as well as
a small
(proportionately to their population), but
utterly greedy, middle class. India, for
instance is a country where Mercedes saw a
47% surge in sales recently and where its
super-rich have long raised eyebrows around
the world with their spectacular spending,[9]
whereas at the same time nearly half of
India’s 1.2 billion people have no toilets
at home[10]
and nearly 2 million children under the age
of five die every year from preventable
illness as common as diarrhea, and of those
who survive, half are stunted owing to a
lack of nutrients.[11]
Yet, the Indian elite recently decided that
the country could afford to have its own
space program and even launched the first
satellites![12]
The myth, in particular, of the emerging new
economic superpower in China is based on
crude statistical indicators, such as GDP
and the concentration of industrial and
trade power within that country. But such
indicators ignore the huge size of its
population, and the fact that it is
basically the TNCs which created the alleged
economic miracle, including the post-Mao
industrial and trade power. Thus, taking
into account relative population sizes, the
per capita GNP of China and India is still
11% and 3.5% respectively of that of the
USA,[13]
despite the fact that the celebrated growth
rates achieved by both countries in the last
decade were over six times higher in China
and more than four times higher in India,
than in the USA.[14]
In other words, the so-called economic
‘miracles’ of globalization (China, India
etc.) are, in fact, the myths of
globalization, as their rapid growth and
industrialization, in the last 35 years or
so, simply mirrors the de-growth and
de-industrialization of the West. It was
from the West that many TNCs moved to China
and India to maximize their profits,
exploiting the huge comparative advantage of
these countries in terms of cheap production
cost (mainly cheap —and usually skilled
—labor), as well as in terms of markets free
of significant social controls, low taxes,
and other facilities offered to investors,
particularly in the ‘special economic zones’
of slave labor emerging lately in countries
like China. Similarly, the allegation
repeated by Obama and all globalist
ideologues of the supposed drastic reduction
of world poverty as a result of
globalization can also be shown to be a
statistical myth.
The presumed "elimination" of poverty is
almost exclusively due to the fact that the
Chinese "communist" leadership removed from
the list of the poor more than 400 million
Chinese in the period 1981-2001, simply
because they became proud earners of US$ 1
dollar a day, thus decreasing with one
stroke of the pen the percentage of
absolutely poor in China by two-thirds and
reducing accordingly world poverty
—something that every self-respecting
ideologue of globalization celebrates![15]
As for the supposedly huge trade power of
China, although this is prima facie true,
many, if not most, of its high technology
exports and imports are due to the
activities of foreign TNCs. This means that
the moment the country decides to impose
drastic social controls on markets to reduce
their ‘freedom’ to move capital and
commodities in and out of their country,
(e.g. in order to protect local labor or the
environment from the wild exploitation of
TNCs), the Chinese ‘miracle’ could end
overnight.
Also, one can draw similar conclusions with
regards to the other dimensions of
transnational economic power, e.g. China’s
technological power. As Wolf & Pilling
pointed out in their study, a clear
indication that China is still well behind
is that “economy wide average productivity
remains a fifth of US levels.”[16]Even
more important is the absence of
world-leading Chinese technology companies,
as the same study shows, with the principal
exception of Huawei, whereas the US by
comparison, hosts a significant number of
world-leading companies.
The consequences of
globalization and the propaganda of the
Transnational Elite
But
let us see briefly how the globalization
process has already led to an unprecedented
concentration of income and wealth, which
several studies have confirmed.
As
regards to the concentration of income,
according to Nobel laureate in economics
Joseph Stiglitz:
“Large segments of the population in
advanced countries have
not been doing well:
in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income
stagnation for a third of a century. Median
income for full-time male workers is
actually lower in real
(inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42
years ago. At the bottom, real wages are
comparable to their level 60 years ago.”[17]
Also, as regards the concentration of
wealth, according to
a Credit Suisse report, the richest 1
percent on the planet owned 48.2 percent of
the world’s wealth in 2014, (up from 46
percent the year before), whereas the bottom
half of the global population owned less
than 1 percent of the total wealth![18]
Furthermore, more recent data suggests there
has been an acceleration in the
concentration of wealth. Thus, according to
a very recent OXFAM report, the net worth of
the 62 richest people is equal to the
combined wealth of half the world (3.5
billion poorest people). Furthermore, as the
same study showed, this trend has
accelerated sharply, in the last five years
or so, as the wealth of a circle of
billionaires consisting of 388 people has
risen by 44 per cent, (or half a trillion
dollars) since 2010, while the wealth of the
poorest fell by 41 per cent (more than a
trillion)![19]
The
social consequences of the huge inequality
created by globalization, even in the USA,
the country that played a leading role in
promoting the opening and liberalization of
markets throughout the post-war period, are
well known. Thus, a very recent study
published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association
implicitly showed that the more a country is
integrated into the NWO the greater the
negative impact on health and life
expectancy. The result is that, as average
life expectancy in developing nations
continues to rise, lifespans in parts of
America are getting shorter. This has
reached the point where the poorest American
men, at the age of 40, have a life
expectancy comparable to the average
40-year-old man in Pakistan and Sudan!
Rightly, therefore, Dr Deaton,
a professor of economics at Stanford
University, noted that the “infamous 1 per
cent is not only richer” they have “ten to
15 more years to enjoy their richly funded
lives,” with their life expectancy being
better than the average for any nation on
earth.[20]
Even
the
Financial Times, the systemic financial
organ of the Transnational Elite
par
excellence recently had to admit the
catastrophic consequences of globalization.
As one of its main commentators pointed out:
“We are close to the point where
globalization and membership of the Eurozone
in particular have damaged not only certain
groups in society but entire nations,”
describing in some detail the economic
shocks that ‘inevitably’ result from
globalization.[21]
The economic shocks concerned are: the
stagnation of real average incomes for two
decades but also the global financial crisis
— a consequence of globalization — and its
permanent impact on long-term economic
growth. The overall effect, according to the
same report (written just before Brexit!)
was:
“In large parts of Europe, the combination
of globalization and technical advance
destroyed the old working class and is now
challenging the skilled jobs of the lower
middle class. So, voters’ insurrection is
neither shocking nor irrational. Why should
French voters cheer labor market reforms if
it could result in the loss of their jobs,
with no hope of a new one?... In 2014,
almost 90 per cent of Germans were in favor
of free trade, according to a YouGov poll.
That has fallen to 56 per cent. The number
of people who reject TTIP outright has risen
from 25 per cent to 33 per cent over the
same period of time.”[22]
No
wonder that, following in particular the
victory of Brexit and the fact that
President Trump, during the election
campaign, adopted many of the demands of the
victims of globalization, the Transnational
elites have been terrified by this rapid
rise of the anti-globalization movement.
Particularly so as it is not anymore just
the neo-nationalist movements in East Europe
(such as those in Hungary and Poland) which
challenge globalization. Following Brexit,
the Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany
party (AFD) came second, ahead of Chancellor
Angela Merkel’s CDU, in regional elections
held in September, while similar parties and
movements in Italy, France, Austria and the
Netherlands have also seen a significant
rise in their popularity.
This
could explain the concerted attack against
the rising new anti-globalization movement
by some of the prominent members of the
Transnational elite, such as the head of the
IMF, the president of the European Central
Bank and the president of the European
Council.[23]
All of them suddenly discovered the gross
inequality in the distribution of income and
wealth as a result of globalization
(followed belatedly by the globalists all
over the world) — and blamed (not
globalization itself, of course!) but just
the political elites for not taking enough
measures to boost
support
for low income workers and reducing
inequality. Yet, all of them are fully aware
of the fact that any such measures are
impossible, in an environment of open and
liberalized markets. This is because any
such measures, if they are designed to be
effective (as present circumstances demand),
they are bound to affect negatively
competitiveness —the foundation of
globalization itself.
Not
surprisingly, the arch-gatekeeper of
globalization, the EU Commission President,
immediately came out to ‘restore order’ and
declare that the recipe for combating
growing discontent in Europe was “more
union” including a military headquarters “to
co-ordinate efforts towards creating a
common military force”. Thisrightly prompted Le Pen,
the leader of the French FN, to ask “What is
the EU protecting us from — are you
protecting us against prosperity?”[24]
The myth of an
implicit racism behind the Brexit
revolutions of UK and USA
Finally, a particularly odious myth promoted
by ideologists of globalization (and
explicitly or implicitly by the globalist
“Left”) is that both Brexit and Donald Trump
were victorious mainly because of an
implicit racism in both societies. The
obvious intention of this kind of slander
was to discard any idea that the Trump vote
in the USA (or, similarly the Brexit vote in
the UK) had anything to do with class and
anti-globalization, and everything to do
with racism and anti-immigration! Yet, even
orthodox academics could not escape some
indirect hints to the class nature of the
vote, as when they mention the fact that
“Donald Trump was remarkably successful in
such mid-West Rust Belt states as Michigan,
Ohio and Wisconsin, where the decline of
manufacturing industry has seemingly created
a part of America that can also be said to
have been ‘left behind.’[25]
On the other hand, two British academics
with admitted connections to EU funding
(although — as they stated in advance — not
for this particular work!) attempted to do
exactly this: to use high powered
statistical analysis to draw conclusions
consistent with the Bremain propaganda. That
is, the black propaganda that those who
voted Brexit did so mainly because of their
anti-immigrant or racist feelings rather
than because they were angry with the
phasing out of their country’s economic and
national sovereignty within the EU and the
fact that their economic position had
significantly deteriorated since the opening
and liberalization of markets for capital,
commodities and labor imposed by Thatcherism
first and then by the Maastricht Treaty and
the other EU treaties that followed.
Thus, according to this supposedly
‘objective’ scientific research, those who
voted for Brexit did so simply because they
were ignorant anti-immigrant (the implicitly
insinuation is that they were racists) who
in fact live in areas where immigration is
low and therefore were hardly in a position
to judge whether immigration is good or bad!
The two academics, starting with the clearly
biased premise
that “the EU referendum was, for many
people, a referendum on immigration”,
made a major ‘discovery’ based on supposedly
“hard evidence”.
Their ‘discovery’ was that “in
most cases, high proportions of Leave voters
were not concentrated in areas of high
immigration. Apart from a few outliers, the
districts with the highest vote for Leave
were those with the lowest levels of
immigration.”[26]
However, you do not need any sort of
statistical analysis but just common sense
to realize that immigrants do not have any
economic or other incentive to move to
deprived areas populated mostly by the
victims of globalization and, instead, they
tend to concentrate in areas where the
beneficiaries of globalization also live,
such as London, although, inevitably, many
of the victims of globalization also live in
such big urban areas and inner London areas.
But,
at this point, this ‘objective’ analysis
makes another heroic jump to ‘justify’ the
biased premise it started with. Relying on
the conclusions of the well-known systemic
think-tank
Demos
(presumably based on a similar kind of
‘research’) according to which “contact with
migrants and members of ethnic minority
communities ‘takes the edge off negative
perceptions’, something reinforced by
assimilation,” they drew, hey presto, the
pre-conceived conclusion they wanted to
‘prove’:
“So, where migrants were not present, it
appears they were held partly to blame for
the all-too-real, but much deeper-seated,
economic difficulties experienced by
locals.”[27]
Clearly, this is just another distortion of
the voting behavior of the victims of
globalization. The “economic difficulties
experienced by locals” that the research
mentions refer, mainly, to the squeezing of
wages as a result of immigration. Τhe
obvious inference is that the absence of
such a serious squeeze in an area should be
taken to mean that, if Brexit was victorious
in it, the locals should have been motivated
by anti-immigration feelings.
However, the victims of globalization voted
for Brexit not just because they suffered a
squeezing in their wages during the
globalization era but, even more important,
because of the general deprivation in their
areas, as a result of the closing down of
entire industries following the move of the
TNCs to the ‘labor paradises’ of the Far
East. Furthermore, they voted for Brexit
because of the decaying of the social
welfare system, which of course has been
directly due to the drastic cut in social
spending in the globalization era, as a
result of the adoption of tax cutting
neoliberal policies. Obviously, the mass
influx of immigrants, on top of the cuts in
social spending, had surely made the
situation worse.
In
other words, the real motives of those who
voted for Brexit cannot be found on the
basis of empirical research, as this sort of
analysis idiotically implies, but only on
the basis of historical analysis. Thus, the
fact that before globalization there were no
serious anti-immigrant or Islamophobic
trends in Europe is far from accidental.
Common sense makes crystal clear that the
effects of globalization I mentioned above,
as well as those of the mass Islamophobic
campaign —supposedly aimed against
terrorism but, in fact, aimed to cover up
the crimes of the Transnational and Zionist
elites in the Middle East during the
globalization era — are highly related to
the present outburst of anti-immigrant and
Islamophobic trends.
Similarly, the Trump victory in the USA
simply confirmed the fact, recognized also
even by systemic writers, that the movement
for Brexit in Britain, as well as the
movement for Trump in the United States and
similar movements all over Europe, are in
fact all parts of a rising new
anti-globalization movement which began in
Europe and has spread all over the world. As
I tried to show in my latest book with
respect to Brexit, globalization is a class
issue, and Brexit reflected the popular
reaction to the class nature of
globalization. Furthermore, it was exactly
the abysmal failure of the ‘Left’ in the UK
and US to grasp this fact (either for
dogmatic reasons or because it has already
been fully integrated in the NWO) which has
led to its theoretical and consequently
political bankruptcy. Therefore, the Trump
victory in the USA simply confirmed the
fact, recognized also even by systemic
writers, that the movement for Brexit in
Britain, as well as the movement for Trump
in the United States and similar movements
all over Europe, are all parts of a rising
new anti-globalization movement which began
in Europe and has spread all over the world.
Yet
both the globalists in the US (i.e. the
Democrats as well as the globalist ‘Left’)
and those in the UK did not have any qualms
about playing the racist card, in their
desperate effort to root out ‘Trumpism’ and
Brexit respectively. The pretext in the US
was Trump’s senseless promise to build a
wall around America and particularly on the
border with Mexico to stop mass illegal
immigration from that country. On this, he
was conveniently ‘forgetting’ in the process
that it was the US elites in the first
instance, which, in collaboration with the
Mexican elites, created the present
dependent development of Mexico, whose
growth depends on foreign (i.e. US)
investment and trade, as these elites
destroyed any possibility of economic
self-reliance in that country. Of course,
Mexico’s dependent development goes back to
the history of its relation to the USA in
the last century and NAFTA, (the agreement
between the local and US elites) simply
institutionalized this dependence
relationship (exactly as the EU agreement
institutionalized Greek dependence on
Northern Europe).
Towards a Democratic world Community
of Sovereign Nations
As
Prof. John McMurtry aptly
described the causes underlying the rise of
the present anti-globalization movement:
“An underlying revolution in thinking has
occurred. Trump has tapped the deep chords
of worker rage at dispossession by forced
corporate globalization, criminally
disastrous Middle East wars, and trillions
of dollars of bailouts to Wall Street. He
never connects the dots on stage. But by
Clinton’s advocacy of all of them, she has
made them her own and will go down because
of it… But this is not a Republican-Democrat
division. It is as deep as all the lost jobs
and lives since 2001, and it is ultimately
grounded in the tens of millions of
dispossessed people which the life-blind
global market system and its wars have
imposed on America too.”[28]
In
fact, It is this realization of
dispossession by the victims of
globalization in Europe and the USA, as a
result of the loss of their economic
sovereignty (and for many peoples in Europe
of their national sovereignty as well),
which has led them to move en masse to the
neo-nationalist movements:
from
the globalist ‘Left’, which has been fully
integrated into the NWO (Socialists, social
democrats as well as political crooks of the
SYRIZA and Podemos kind) and also
from
a myopic anti-systemic Left which, like the
millenarians, waits for the socialist
revolution, instead of fighting for national
and economic sovereignty by breaking the
ties with the NWO and its institutions (EU,
IMF, WTO and the likes).
No
wonder the huge political gap created by the
historical Left was quickly filled by
neonationalist parties and movements (most of
which, however, have nothing to do with old
nationalist and racist parties).
In
conclusion, only an economic and political
union of peoples resisting today’s uni-polar
NWO would be in a position to create the
pre-conditions for transcending the present
homogenization and put, instead, the
foundations for a different, really
self-managed society —something
obviously impossible today when the vast
majority of the world population, the
victims of globalization, live under
conditions of effective occupation fighting
for their own survival. This requires a new
transition strategy aiming to create the
conditions for the development of a
democratic world community of sovereign and
self-reliant nations to replace the present
New World Order of neoliberal globalization.
It is also hoped that such a strategy would
allow a genuine new form of internationalism
to be built ‘from below’, which will be
inspired by the principles of solidarity and
mutual aid, rather than the catastrophic
principles of competitiveness and
profit-making, as at present.-
[15]
World Bank,
World development indicators
2005, Table 2.5a. See Takis
Fotopoulos,
The “elimination of
poverty”, The
International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy, vol.4, no.1, (January
2008).
[16]
Martin Wolfand
David Pilling,
“China: On top of the world”,
Financial Times (2/5/2014).