We can Homogenize the Global Market without Globalization

The Globalization of today is the Global Neo-Feudalism of Tomorrow


Initially Published in Data Driven Investor


Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

Looking back at the history of human evolution and its associated socioeconomic obstacles, we can observe how to overcome the disparity between classes of communities. Despite all that, we are still contemplating what would be the most efficient way to homogenize the global socioeconomic status. Of course, some may see such homogeneity as the ultimate equality among the constituents, something communism envisions with utter failure. But in reality, here within and after, what socioeconomic uniqueness stays creating options. It is about the free trade system between the various societies around the country or the world.

Socioeconomic uniformity is a relatively novel phenomenon, and it is merely observed through the lens of what we realize today under the title of “Socioeconomic Globalization.

Socioeconomic Globalization; the Modern trend after the fall of the Communist Iron Wall

Globalization pertains to the method of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments globally. It has escalated since the 19th century due to advances in transportation and communication technology.

Socioeconomic globalization has produced an extension in international trade and the shift of ideas and cultures. Globalization is fundamentally an economic means of interaction and integration that is associated with social and cultural perspectives.

There are three principal dimensions of globalization, with economic globalization being one of the three. The two others are political globalization and cultural globalization.

Economic globalization regards the extensive international movement of goods, capital, services, technology, and information.

Globalization is the cause of increasing economic integration and reliance on national, regional, and local economies across the planet through an intensification of cross-border movement of goods, services, technologies, and capital.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the downfall of the Soviet Union flagged the end of the post-second-World-War bipolar system and transformed world order.

The 19th century delineates a time when people envisioned socioeconomic globalization through Maoist and Stalinist socialism. The Chinese and Soviet communist structure proposed the concept that globalization, particularly economic globalization, only through the takeover of the socioeconomic affairs by the state.

On the other hand, free-market capitalism visualizes the economy by decentralizing the system into smaller sovereign states. However, the destruction of the iron wall marked the beginning of the sweeping expansion of Crony corporate capitalism beyond geopolitical borders, redefining socioeconomic and political globalization. Microsoft and google representing two of many examples of the latter trend.

Globalization is the Instrument of Corporate Expansion

After the fall of the Soviet regime, globalization increased the interconnectedness and interdependence of peoples and countries around the world. That led to the establishment of the G20, a global bloc composed of the governments and central bank authorities from 19 states and the European Union (EU) Established in 1999.

The G20 is composed of the most industrialized and developing economies that contribute to international economic and financial stability decision-making. Together, the G20 nations account for around 80% of global economic output, the first 75% of all international trade, and about two-thirds of the world’s inhabitants.

G20 leaders get together every year in a summit to discuss and coordinate pressing global issues of “mutual interest.” Though economics and trade are the centerpieces of each summit’s agenda, prominent corporation executives are interested in climate change, migration policies, terrorism, the future of work, or global wealth. Hence, they have also become a recurring focus of the G20 summit.

The G20 leaders represent the “political core of the global financial architecture that curbs markets, strictly defined capital flows, and thresholds for countries with various needs.

The joint action of G20 leaders has placed trade barriers removal and the implementation of financial structure. Nonetheless, the G20 monetary and fiscal policies have been the source of tax evasion and corruption, which has proven to be among many downsides of contemporary globalization. As a result of this and other failures from the G20 in coordinating globalization, populists and nationalist movements worldwide have been pushing countries to pursue their interests alone or form coalitions.

Corporations have successfully maximized their influence on governments through lobbyism or directly extorting the leaders to enforce specific policies to their benefit.

Globalism, Nationalism, Individual Welfare, and Conflict of Interest

Although there is a significant discourse among nationalists and neo-globalists, either concept significantly undermines individual welfare and autonomy. Because Globalism and Nationalism both favor the profile of a group of people or entities. In both scenarios, individuality is subdued by fascism. The proponents of globalism are typically in favor of diminishing international borders’ authority and the ability of nations to maintain them, to facilitate further uninhibited global political, economic, and cultural engagement. Although the result of globalist doctrine often occurs out of public expose. However, specific public icons of particular sociopolitical profiles make are benefiting from its mission. Outspoken globalists such as George Soros and Bill Gates align with the wealthy yet leftist demographic. The latter is because globalism often achieves many neoliberal policies, such as reducing the barriers between opposing cultures and underdeveloped nations' economic integration through collective approaches such as socialism and Neoliberalism.

On the other hand, the term “nationalism” has been subject to intensive public scrutiny. In the eyes of many leftist media and political officials, it has almost become synonymous with hate, bigotry, and racism. This inaccurate pairing of words has been further facilitated by self-proclaimed right-wing nationalists who do not really understand the term but subsequently use it to pursue xenophobic agendas. At its core, nationalism refers merely to the prospect of prioritizing one’s particular nation before those of others and maintaining the sovereignty of a state’s own decisions and direction. But, dangerous elements of nationalism have perpetuated well into the current era and have taken severe problematic root in the United States. Ethnic nationalism had hostilely divided American society since before the dawn of the Civil War when Northern Republicans and Sothern Democrats bore arms over the role and status of African Americans.

The nationalist theory, at its most corrupted and immoral form, poses an equally challenging threat to the free liberties of individuals and groups as globalists. The direct aim of many radical self-proclaimed nationalists is the oppression, removal, or even outright genocide of entire groups of people, most commonly based solely on their demographic profile. That directly contradicts the fundamental rights of all humans, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as famously posited by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

The Emergence of Populism in the Era of Globalization