Globalism, Puts Forward a Particularly Unique Argument

¶ … Globalism," puts forward a particularly unique argument regarding the nature of Globalization, and specifically, how it has failed as an ideology. The fundamental failure, according to Saul, of globalism is associated with the promises it made for the future of global economics as well as politics. Namely, globalization of the world's economy was supposed to bring about the eventual downfall of nationalism, more evenly distribute wealth worldwide and between the classes, and grant governments a debt-free existence. In short, none of these consequences have come to be realized. Saul equates the fervor with which the concept of globalization was introduced to Christian idealism: it was a beautiful concept that promised to do so much while we were required to do so little. In other words, globalization was supposed to regulate itself. Essentially, Saul believes that globalism's failure to achieve its goals spells the end for it as a realistic form of economy and that nationalism seems ready, once again, to take center stage.

Perhaps the most convincing portion of Saul's article is the portion in which he discusses the overall trend of large economic ideologies and policies to change over time. He writes, 'The wide open market theory that dies in 1929 had a run of just over 30 years. Communism, a complete melding of religious, economic and global theories stretched to 70 years in Russia and 45 in central Europe. . . . Keynesianism, if you add its flexible, muscular form during the Depression to its more rigid postwar version, lasted 45 years." (Saul 2004).

Accordingly, the assertion that globalization is a form of economy that will last through the ages seems to be a particularly short sighted point-of-view. Yet, Saul argues that this notion is exactly what the proponents of globalization would have us believe. This optimism is quite analogous to the optimism of economists prior to the Great Depression, and prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Saul's premise is rather compelling, and surprisingly, one of the few instances such a perspective has been put forward: globalization cannot last forever because the world does not stand still. Put into historical context, the global economy as we know it must change or ultimately suffer complete collapse.

Aside from this particularly interesting point, Saul's argument seems to focus upon the promises made by globalization and its failure to live up to them. He fails to strictly address the structural mechanics of our global market or the broad trends that are fundamental to its perpetuation. The number one failure of globalization, in Saul's eyes, is its inability to diffuse the power of the nation-state. He states, "What is certain is that nationalism of the best and worst sort has made a remarkable, unexpected recovery. We don't yet know whether it will become the new dominant ideology." (Saul 2004). He believes that the emergence of increasingly powerful states in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and the unilateral actions of the United States reveal the ultimate triumph of nations over globalization.

Saul's additional objections to the success of globalism stem from the economic freedoms it was supposed to initiate. Choice was the word that made globalization so appealing; corporations had more options as to where they were going to sell their good and where they were going to find a workforce; individuals had more choices of where to purchase products.

'They [the public] were beginning to feel that what was presented as an argument of Globalism vs. protectionism was often just a confused opposition of personal choice and abstract corporate interests. So globalization, put forward as a metaphor for choice, was organizing itself around not consumers but corporate structures, structures that sought profits by limiting personal choice." (Saul 2004).

A consequence of the power corporations were able to wield was that the aspects of choice within the global economy that most benefited their profits were preferentially achieved. So by this measure as well, globalization was unsuccessful in realizing the goals it was theoretically capable of.

Another significant failure of globalization has to do with distribution of wealth. Saul writes, " They [the public] noticed that in a mere 25 years CEO salaries in the U.S. had gone from 39 times the pay of an average worker to more than 1000 times." (Saul 2004). The global and social division of wealth, despite the new world economy, has continued to draw a sharper and deeper contrast between the rich and the poor of the world. This is one major problem facing our current system, and Saul is right to point it out. Although, globalization offers employment and investment opportunities on a worldwide scale, some subsets of humanity are missing out on these opportunities by virtue of cheaper and more cost-effective settings existing elsewhere, or from the form of government they live under. In other words, corporate outsourcing -- the process of moving some or all aspects of production to oversea workforces -- tends to degrade numerous workforces across the globe. Obviously, on a large scale this should be seen as beneficial; after all, global competition for employment should lead to general uniformity in wages and working conditions among workers worldwide. However, many of the cheapest workforces exist because they are under oppressive governments, or those that lack the same standards in environmental protection or working conditions that exist in developed nations. Consequently, these governments tend to inhibit the positive aspects of globalization. Overall, the current global political environment makes it possible for corporations to act amorally, and thus, increase their profits at society's expense.

However, as interesting and believable as Saul's arguments are, they only illustrate the shortcomings of globalism as a theory and not as it is actually practiced. It is not necessarily a convincing argument to state that globalization is over because it does not exist in its theoretical form. Doubtlessly, the optimism the founders of our current economy possessed was ill-founded; but the substantial failures of globalization do not suggest that widespread trade on a planetary scale will cease any time soon.