By: mag Tadej Ian
In this article, we explain why globalisation and communism (in the guise of state socialism) are similarly harmful and ultimately lead to comparable destructive consequences. In the West, there is too little awareness that globalisation, an invention of the West, is a double-edged sword that can threaten or even destroy Western civilisation.
The title of this article is deliberately shocking, because it is time to call things by their real name. Today, anti-globalists are mocked by both the academic world and most of the lay public in the West. Globalisation does offer many advantages, but as we will show, they do not outweigh its drawbacks. The current glorification of globalisation, especially by neoliberal economic science, is excessive. Considering the collapse of liberal economic doctrine during the Great Depression of 1929, one might even call it naïve.
Western enthusiasm, particularly in Europe, for cheap goods from the Global South, mostly from China, is deeply short-sighted. There is little understanding that these inexpensive products ultimately harm Western prosperity. This manifests in the erosion of Western economies and the growing geopolitical influence of China and its increasing number of lackeys, i.e., countries from the Global South. We have written about this in Demokracija before, so this time we will focus on the true nature of globalisation – its wolf’s fur hidden beneath a thick, multilayered sheep’s disguise.
Opposition to globalisation comes exclusively from parts of the political right
Mainstream science claims that critics of globalisation exist on both the right and the left. This is a half-truth or a lie. No respectable leftist in the world opposes globalisation at its core. Since Marx, leftists have championed internationalism, as in: “Workers of the world, unite!” The idea was that the working class should unite across borders, and according to this ideology, which brainwashes minds, a German worker supposedly has more in common with a Bolivian worker than with a German civil servant or landowner or capitalist. Although today’s radical left no longer genuinely cares about the proletariat or the most vulnerable in society, they remain passionate internationalists. From this perspective, globalisation is more than welcome.
What bothers them, however, is that globalisation currently operates within a market economy, where the most diligent and capable thrive. Leftists would prefer a planned economy with a socially parasitic levelling system and a global alliance of two hundred socialist states governed by an activist elite of radical leftists.
Right-wing and left-wing globalist elites
From this understanding, it is only a short step to the conclusion that communism and globalisation, as we know them today, have very similar consequences: communism at the national level, globalisation at the international level. Despite the globalists’ extreme efforts to make globalisation’s PR as appealing as possible, the fact remains that only a small elite benefits from it in the long term. Whether it is the leadership of multinational corporations and banks, or billionaires aligned with the globalist right, or radical leftist activists who feel called to lead the world according to the narrow confines of their ideologically burdened minds, the fact remains: the elite is the elite. The elite is always a self-proclaimed, upwardly mobile group of people driven primarily by personal and often highly selfish interests, which always, or at least very often and to a great extent, harm the majority of people who do not belong to it.
Globalist levelling is strikingly similar to communist levelling
Why is globalisation, in the long run, similarly harmful as communism or state socialism? The core communist philosophy and method of operation was levelling. In state socialism, the idea was that everyone receives something, or what aligns with their needs. Because a planned economy, unlike a market economy, cannot be truly wealthy (as it is irrationally designed and managed), what most people receive is very little. This means that under state socialism, the majority faces poverty. In wild, unrestricted globalisation, the end result is, or will be, identical to that of state socialism. Pre-socialist society is stratified. Some inherit property from capable ancestors, others acquire wealth through personal diligence. Behind every poor person and every rich person lie reasons rooted in this generation, the previous one, or several before. This reflects evolution, personal development of individuals on one hand, and of social groups (e.g., families or nations) on the other. In pre-socialist society, individuals and social groups protect their property and prosperity through various measures and seek to increase it. Some succeed more, others less. With the arrival of (state) socialism, everything is reset – property is confiscated and managed by a small communist elite.
Globalisation produces a very similar effect. In pre-globalised societies, wealthy countries (e.g., Western nations) built their wealth over centuries of sound economic and sociopolitical practice. On the other side are Global South countries, which followed a different path and are comparatively poorer or even impoverished. Western nations understood that a nation becomes wealthy only if it has many wealthy, or at least relatively prosperous, citizens who can live normally and not worry about daily survival. These people have purchasing power and drive the economy through demand, expanding both personal and national prosperity.
In pre-globalised society, richer countries protect themselves from poorer ones through tariffs, quotas, and restrictions on the movement of people across borders. Wild globalisation does not reset everything like state socialism does, but it removes protections for wealthy countries against poorer ones. And what happens? Poorer countries flood richer ones with their products (and services), because they are cheaper, and with mass economic migration. Poorer countries have cheaper goods and labour because human value is not as highly regarded as in wealthy nations. The West knows this, we went down that path ourselves 200+ years ago, when most Westerners were poor. Because human value is lower in poor countries, workers are paid less and have fewer rights. That is why, under wild globalisation, wealthy countries that strive to ensure their workers are prosperous, by protecting them and securing good wages, become less competitive. They are further weakened by the influx of cheap labour from poorer countries. This means wealthy nations have less money for social services and a less competitive business environment. Western companies relocate to poor Global South countries, opening production facilities and headquarters there to survive, because they can no longer do so in the West. As a result, Westerners grow poorer, because their countries grow poorer. Eventually, we reach (or will reach) global levelling, identical to that of state socialism. Will people in Global South countries become wealthier because of this? No. They will remain roughly as poor as before, because the rapid influx of wealth will not quickly change their value systems, and human worth will still be lower than it once was in the formerly wealthy West. In the Global South, only ruling elites will grow richer.
For these reasons, it is clear that globalisation is a menace, because it will, in the long run, impoverish the West, which has been the driving force of civilisation. The West enabled prosperity for the entire world. Globalisation is a menace because its ultimate result will be a world with far more poor people than before its emergence, as it will eventually impoverish the majority of Westerners. That is why the final outcome of globalisation will mirror that of state socialism. Globalisation must therefore be stopped, or at least strongly and wisely curtailed.