Here is a short essay I wrote for my Sociology class at University on the issue of the inherent structural flaws in "globalisation" (defined as a characteristic of Capitalism) last year. Though it takes a pretty Orthodox Marxist approach and I have since moved on somewhat from that philosophical grounding, on the subject of globalisation I still believe in everything I wrote down in this essay.

All Animals Are Globalised But Some Are More Global Than Others: Unevenness, Exploitation And Collapse In Global Capitalism.

We live in an era in which the issue of “globalization” seems to assert its importance more and more with the passage of time. As I write, the global system of finance-led capitalism seems on the brink of irreparably tearing itself apart, with American economist Joseph Stiglitz (2010, Pg. 296) stating that the free-market, finance-dominated policies of the Washington Consensus “and the underlying ideology of market fundamentalism are dead.” And every day we hear news of anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements, from the Spanish “indignados” to the global “occupy” protests, Cohen and Kennedy (2007, Pg.5) stating that globalization has birthed a strong and vocal resistance movement in opposition to the naked, individualistic consumerism globalization has carried in its seemingly relentless wake. Some argue that this period in which globalization has achieved new prominence has been marked by an erosion of traditional societal structures, for example, Bilton et al (2007) argue that, in the face of global Transnational Corporations (TNCs), the ability of Nation-states to exert some democratic control over capital has been made much more difficult.  In this essay, I will dispute the notion of globalization as a unique movement in history and will set out the thesis that globalization is little more than a stage in the evolution of capitalism and an extension across the globe of an accompanying neoliberal political agenda. I will explain how the process of globalization is incredibly uneven as an inevitable consequence of the spread of global capitalism, arising from the inherently exploitative relations lying at capitalism’s heart, and thus that it is not unevenness that is the hallmark of globalization/capitalism at all, but exploitation between nation states and larger geographical regions. I will also address the issue that globalization is incomplete, arguing that the end stage of globalisation is the collapse of capitalism under its inherent contradictions. In accomplishing this task I will give particular focus to the economic, rather than cultural or political, nature of this spread of global capitalism and especially the example of the financial crisis spanning from 2008 to the present day.

Before we go on to explore the extent to which globalization has had an uneven impact across the world, we must first address the issue of defining what globalization actually is and whether or not it is even occurring as there several competing models of globalization. For the sake of brevity, none can be delved into as much as they deserve but an outline of some of the the competing models of globalization is necessary if we are to determine its impact in terms of unevenness.

The first model of globalization to be outlined is that presented by Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy, authors of “Global Sociology.” Cohen and Kennedy view globalisation as “a set of mutually reinforcing transformations that occur more or less simultaneously” (2007, Pg. 44) and they argue that these processes are incomplete and impact upon the world unevenly. They argue that globalization can be identified by six component strands which will be briefly outlined: firstly, the changing nature of space and time through the development of technologies throughout history such as the mechanical clock and the motorcar; the increasing volume of cultural interactions throughout the world, often facilitated by technology for example, television; the shared nature of the problems facing the world’s inhabitants giving the example of terror attacks and natural disasters; the growing number of interconnection and interdependencies in the world, both between individuals and institutions such as nation-states (an example of the interdependence of nation-states being the global financial crisis of 2008); the growth of a network of increasingly powerful actors on the global stage and finally the ability of all of these separate strands of global processes to synchronize (ibid., 2007).

A second model of globalization has been outlined by Luke Martell in his “The Sociology of Globalization.”  Martell speaks of globalization in terms of the “compression of space” that renders physical distance increasingly less problematic in terms of the spread of knowledge and culture (Martell 2010). Martell argues that complete (and even) globalization must fulfil five criteria. First of these is that the reach of globalization must be truly global and equally impact on all parts of every continent; secondly Martell argues that globalization must take equal input, not just an extensions of culture and products from one area of the world; in addition there must be interdependency among global actors, not just interconnection, with issues impacting all actors simultaneously; Martell also argues that globalization must have stability in global relations to establish a unified structure or system and finally Martell argues that globalization requires involvement from the masses of the people and not just an unaccountable elite (ibid., 2010, Pg. 14-15).  Martell argues that what is termed “globalization” is marked by inequality and unevenness and does not meet his criteria and ergo is neither a global nor complete process (ibid. 2010 Pg. 6).

A third model of globalization, and the model this essay will be drawing from, comes from a Marxian perspective, drawing from the works of Marx and Engels themselves and built on by writers such as David Harvey and by publications such as International Socialism, among others.  Marx has been praised by many academics, such as historian Eric Hobsbawm (Hunt, 2011) for providing one of the earliest and most compelling accounts of globalization,  with Alex Callinicos (2010, Pg. 17) praising the “pioneering” work of Marxists in the study of global processes. Marx and Engels, writing in the Communist Manifesto stated that “the need of a constantly expanding global market for its products chases the Bourgeoisies over the whole surface of the globe” (Marx, Engels, 2002, Pg. 223). Within the Marxian account globalization is viewed as a continuing process of the evolution of capitalism and as the global spread of capitalism, dating back to long before Marx and Engels actually wrote any of their works (Renton, 2002, Pg. 8-9). Through the Marxist interpretation of history, therefore, we must argue that globalization is only “complete” when the international proletariat gain class consciousness and the structures of capitalism collapse.

It is now that we must begin to address, through our aforementioned model of globalization, the extent to which globalization is an uneven and incomplete process. To do this, we must focus on the exploitative relationships that the spread of global capitalism harbours and our first example of this will be the current financial crisis, and the way in which the inherent contradictions of Capital accumulation that Marxist geographer David Harvey (2010) speaks of led to a collapse of the global finance market that impacted different regions unevenly.

Firstly, Harvey states that the financial crisis and the terms of its creation were decided and shaped by the last financial crisis in the late 1970s and the response of global actors to it (ibid. 2010). Harvey contends that the neo-liberal political agenda which rose to prominence as a reaction to the 70s financial crisis framed that crisis as an unbalancing of the market against the power of labour (in the form of trade unions etc.). This neo-liberal response became a global issue as, as Harvey draws attention to, one of the facets of neo-liberal policy was to begin outsourcing labour to countries like India (ibid. 2010). It was this response which led to the rise of global finance and the credit based economy as a key wealth accumulator of capital in the “core nations,” as opposed to manufacturing which was moved to “periphery nations,” ultimately paving the way for the financial crisis. This merely draws attention to the inherently uneven nature of globalization and the spread of global capitalism, with core countries developing into more advanced, financially based capitalist economies, while India is left behind as a labour-intensive economy.

As a geographer, it is not surprising that Harvey pays attention to the relationship between global capital accumulation and spatial factors. In his “Crises of Capitalism” lecture, he points to Marx’s assertion that Capital “cannot abide limits” (ibid. 2010), explaining how Capitalism does not solve its structural crises, such as excessive labour, but moves them around geographically, for example to India (ibid. 2010). Once again, this draws out the exploitative and uneven nature of globalized capitalism, with western nations effectively dumping what they see as the cause of a capitalistic crisis onto a less “developed” nation.

Ironically, however, the current financial crisis has somewhat reversed the tables in terms of the relationship between “core” and “periphery” nations in how the accumulate Capital. It is now the west which is experiencing a protracted period of crisis due to the instability of the sovereign debt crisis while the very countries that the old problems of capital were moved to, such as India and China, are now experiencing a period of growth and wealth accumulation that leaves European countries envious and the United States frantically struggling to maintain its previous global dominance. For example, in China one sees regular economic growth of 8% and in India the number of billionaires created has almost doubled from twenty seven to 52, right in the middle of the 2008 recession (Harvey, 2011, Pg. 222-223). Harvey sums this up, stating that “the uneven geographical development of both crisis and recovery continues apace” (ibid. 2011).

And very clearly, one can see that these processes are not, through a Marxian lens, “complete” as the seeds for future crisis, now in the currently booming Eastern economies, are becoming visible. The enormous growth in China, for example, has been fuelled by massive capital investment and lending based on pure speculation, a process that will likely lead to a crisis of surplus production and debt in the future (ibid. 2011). The lessons of the catastrophe of the West, it seems, have not been learned by their “developing” cousins in the East and the cycles and uneven geographical impact of the spread of global capitalism will continue for the foreseeable future.

So we must conclude then, from the great machineries and complicated structures of globalization, that there is a simple answer when we ask ourselves the extent to which it is both uneven and incomplete. Globalization is, by its nature, uneven as it is little more than a byword for the ever expanding exploitative relations of capitalism, replicating themselves on a larger and larger scale or what Marx himself referred to as the Bourgeoisies’ “exploitation of the world market” (2002, Pg. 223). As to completeness, globalization is a very definitely incomplete process, with further crises of capitalism already looming and with capitalism itself still expanding its reach.

Bibliography

• Stiglitz, Joseph E., (2010), Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy, London: Penguin

• Cohen, R., Kennedy P., (2007), Global Sociology, London: Palgrave MacMillan

•   Bilton, T., Bonnett, K, Jones, P., Lawson, T., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M., Webster, A., (2002) Introductory Sociology, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

• Martell, L. (2010), The Sociology of Globalization, Cambridge: Polity 
•  Hunt, T. (2011), Eric Hobsbawm: a conversation about Marx, student riots, the new Left, and the Milibands, The Guardian, 16^th January 
• Renton, D., (2002), Marx on Globalisation, London: Lawrence and Wishart 
• Marx, K., Engels, F., (2002), The Communist Manifesto, London: Penguin 
• Callinicos, A., (2001), Against the Third Way: An Anti-Capitalist Critique, Cambridge: Polity 
•  Harvey, D., (2011), The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism, London: Profile Books Ltd. 
•     Harvey, D., (2010), Crises of Capitalism, London: RSA, Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0