Resistance is Phutile

Monday musings. Of empire and commerce.

It has been argued that globalisation is a force for good. The consumer allegedly gets better products at cheaper prices, and can always find a McDonalds when faced with eating some fowl concoction cooked up by the locals when on holiday (insert symbol denoting irony here). But the real achievement of globalisation that its chief advocates celebrate is its conquering of the nation state. Corporate dynasties now command much more revenue than many countries, and demand the loyalty of their subjects, who may come from anywhere across the world. The national sovereignties on which human society has based itself for so long are becoming defunct.

It could hardly be argued that transnational commerce is a new development, obviously. The crossing of borders in search of profit has been going on since recorded history began. But until the 1970s any company that had factories and markets overseas viewed them as adjuncts to their home operations. It was during that decade the big businesses, overwhelmingly American of course, began to visualise the entire world as a single economic unit. Charles. P. Kindenberger, one of the leading US authorities on global economics of that time, suggested the international corporation had "no country to which it owed more loyalty than the other, nor any country where it feels completely at home."

So theoretically, all would be equal in this new world of the Great Market. Regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality and so on, all would enjoy equal standing in the eyes of the corporate gods. A twisted yet somehow noble veneer almost emerges, before the reality check hits you between the eyes and you wise up to the facts.

The nation state is said to be outdated, made obselete chiefly by technological progress and economic developments which have seen companies like Exxon and Microsoft gain much more muscle in the global market place than many countries. But if "down with borders" was once the call of ideological students, Lennoned-up and seeking peace and love, did they really envision swapping national identity for a homogenous, centralised existence devoid of character, dictated by those with enough money to buy control of their lives?

And in these days of ferocious US imperialism, when the PNAC manifesto sears itself across the Earth, who really believes that the mass Americanisation of the global market place has been intended to aid the progress of all men as equals, rather than the progress of American interests above all else? Man has always sought to control his surroundings. From Alexander the Great and Attila the Hun to the British Empire and Hitler, the use of military force has been seen as the most effective means of achieving this dominance. Invariably though military strength alone has always eventually failed. The introduction of the One Great Market, under the false guise as liberator of man from his "outdated" nation state may well have been the breakthrough in the eternal pursuit of hegemony. Although breaking down those national borders may have been the dream of the naive ideologists of the past, they have long since woken up from their LSD induced dream world, and are faced with the reality of an entire world of unique cultures and traditions being swallowed up by the most virulent and effective empire the world has yet seen.

But what can be done? The world cannot be expected to step back into its pre-Ipod, Pre-Walmart existence. The path of the human race will not retrace upon itself any more than the teenager will give up his/her eighth of skunk and go back to spending pocket money on penny sweets. As usual there are no simple solutions, but identity-preserving measures need to be taken. Faced with the option of hanging out with the bad crowd, skipping school and smoking weed all day instead, we need to take control of our destiny, focus on the things that matter and work towards achieving them. And keep the weed smoking down to a minimum.

posted by Phu @ 10:55 am