When people hear the term "globalization," they tend to think of it as economic and political jargon with some meaning that doesn't really apply to regular Americans. After all, many of us are far removed from a "global" society. We know next to nothing about foreign cultures except what we see in the media. However, globalization is a trend that does affect all of us and will affect all of us greatly and, I believe, for the worse in the future. Before I explain how, it's probably important to explain what globalization is.
Globalization is the trend towards a global culture and, in particular, a global economy. That is, international trade becomes far more important as a source of income than domestic trade. The local bakery, for example, in a globalized economy would rely on the orders from people in countries on the other side of the globe for the bulk of its profits. Globalization is a process that has existed as long as different cultures came into contact with one another. It has never been so pervasive as it has been in the last hundred years. As technology brings us closer together as a global community, we begin to fuse into a single cultural entity. For example, American pop culture is seen and mimicked by people around the world. Because of our influence on the global stage and because of major advances in technology, cultures around the world are embracing our customs to a certain extent. It is not uncommon to see posters in Japan or billboards in Egypt of American celebrities like Michael Jackson or Jodie Foster. McDonald's restaurants are common in Hong Kong and Indonesia.
Some people fear that with the quickening pace of globalization, individuality and cultural uniqueness will be lost in a flood of consumerism. Indeed, Wal-Mart is seeking to expand its empire into the heart of Central America, as it recently acquired a 33 percent share in Central America's largest market chain. Despite this, I doubt that culture will ever be lost to consumerism. People are as protective of their cultural identities as they are of their iPods and digital cameras. The real problem, I believe, lies in the economic implications of a globalized economy.
After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, it became apparent to everyone that Communism did not work. The only thing left was capitalism, made famous by the United States, which, by becoming the world's only superpower and richest country, proved that capitalism works. However, there are major problems with capitalism. It stratifies economic power severely. Only the "best" (a term which encompasses many factors including existing power and wealth, ambition, intelligence, and even dumb luck) businesses succeed, and there is little room for a great number of competitors. Most businesses fail. Only a few remain and only a few become extremely powerful. Those that do become extremely powerful are in a position to make a monopoly on a certain service or business. That is why the government has learned to step in and break up monopolies and has held a tight rein on businesses. Another problem is the control a company has over people. In essence, a company can blackmail people into paying whatever they ask for. If there is a service people need to live, and a company holds the right to dispense that service, then the people have no choice but to give into their demands. Again, the government has learned to step in and controls, for example, the Postal Service and Social Security. On a national scale, this is alright. The government has power over companies, and the government is run by the people, so ultimately the people have the final say. This is not the case in a global economy.
In a global economy, corporations become the major powers. Countries are powerless to stop companies at an international level because they have no jurisdiction in other countries. That is why corporations are so quick to develop in other countries, especially third-world countries where they can even have power over the governments, which are so poor that they will gladly allow the corporations to step in and help them out. Also, states (another word for countries) can't possible keep a monopoly from existing in another country. That is why Microsoft has faced demonopolization in U.S
and Britain. If it's stopped here, it has to be stopped everywhere else separately. A solution, remember, has been to have government control over important businesses and services so corporations can't become too powerful. But that isn't even the case in the United States. Private companies control health care, electricity, air, water, and land transportation services (except for, of course, local services). These are all crucial for people across the globe to survive, and these are typically run by private countries. And private countries are not to be trusted because their main reason for existing is to make profits. Period. Over time, the scenario will become like this: states will become powerless to control corporations. Corporations will decide how, when, and where to dispense their services. They will decide how much the services will cost. They will decide who gets access to them. They will operate on a global economy that is completely united under corporate control.
This isn't fantasy. This is extrapolation based on current trends. This is theory based on physical evidence. How can we stop globalization from leading to corporate ownership of our lives? There are solutions. There always are. I just don't know them yet.
