Home Up



The Failure of Globalism As An Ideal

By Roy D. Follendore III

Copyright (c) 2003 by RDFollendoreIII

When we Americans speak of Globalism, we are more often then not essentially discussing the dynamic planetary macro economics and the rules and polices that can, are and will benefit Americans.  We are speaking of the imposing potential opportunities of world trade. But any deeper discussion of Globalism rapidly degenerates into an argument about the concepts of personal and social identity and self determination. From that perspective, Globalism is really about all of the complex relationships of instinct and survival.  One is soon led to the principle that mankind has many value systems from which to draw other than economics.  Within such discussions we are forced to recognize that historical individual identity also has value. At some point the shiny golden ideal of Globalism begins to fade and the false science behind it begins to glow bright red.

September 6, 2003

First there was everything, there could be no life, because everything was one thing.  Only when there was compartmentation could there be life.  The physical ability of compartmentation created the potential of differentiation and the subsequent diversity.  Without compartmentation, all things are just one thing and without differentiation, everything is nothing.  There can be no light, no food, no dimension, because there can be no thought and therefore no time.  All life, and all organized life requires compartmentation and all living things depend on the ability to protect the inside from what is outside.  This should be obvious since it is complexity that makes life and it is the complexity of life that generates the diversity of society. 

The continued existence of life is not merely based on the maintenance of the necessary minimums of survival. Complexities imply qualities that determine the advantages of the niche.  The ability to recognize compartmentalization and differentiation is the predatory basis for life to discriminate noise within preferences.  This is the creation of the niche that becomes the basis of evolutionary survival of the fittest.  While it is possible to think of evolution as a biological activity that improves the performance of creatures, the truth is that its underlying state of compartmentation is more than that.  

The concept of compartmentation represents a true fundamental property that allows us to define the boundaries between differentiation and absolute exclusivity.  Compartmentation with respect to expressions of complex living organisms is about a system for identifying and maintaining functionally balanced states of complexity.  This subject is obviously as much about expressions of identity as it is about either equality or fitness, for it is identity that allows all intelligent life to predict complex relationships to become and remain successful. The thing to remember about identity is that compartmentation does not mean the same thing as isolation because it is always relational concept.

You may have heard the old saying that two apples can be compared but apples and oranges can't.  A Red Delicious apple the same size and shape of another, taken from the same tree at the same moment can be expected to be  reasonably similar in a comparison.  On the other hand, if we were to take the same two Red Delicious apples, one on the frozen ice sheets at the North Pole and one sitting in the hot sand of Miami Beach, the differences we might expect between our observations would have a lot to do with their respective environments.  

Because of compartmented complexity, this is more true for living things than nonorganic things like two machined stainless steel ball bearings which are created to be identical.  The environment is always part of a measurement because the essence of a physical thing can not be isolated from the expressions of its environment.  Identity is also related to environment and is related to compartmentation.  This is precisely the reason why it is so important to scientists to create "standard" controlled environmental conditions within which they collect their data measurements.  Having a true standard provides the means to define compartmented identity. For those who consider this level of thinking as arcane, it is important to realize that this is the essence of identifiable existence and at the meta level of thinking this is also the means through which environmental 'niches' may be differentiated.  

It only stands to reason that to consider equality among different compartmented things, there must be a universal value system from which a comparison between niches can be made.  The value system becomes a common standard to which different ideals can be measured.  The product of these measurements are then compared and from that metric it is assumed that reasonable evaluations can be made.  The underlying assumption of this process is that the chosen metric represents a rational bridge between niches.  We must continually remind ourselves that this bridge is only an  associative representation of equality.  

In order to constructively connect theses essential ideas to the idea of economic expressions of Globalism, we must also put a more definitive framework around the concept so that we put the subject in a functional context.  To do this we are not talking about money in the traditional sense, but as a standardized means of compartmentalized differentiation.  We are speaking now of associative representations of equalities through algorithmic calculations, designed to make reasonable (and therefore reasonably accurate) indirect comparisons to niches within differentiated environments, and in ways that may not be rationally otherwise directly compared.  Moreover, we are considering attempts through a practical and consistent mathematical comparisons with rationalized value assignments, rather than through pure mathematical computations or logic.

What is being said is that complexity is a necessary dynamic aspect of life because it provides identity.  Identity both affects and is affected by its environmental niche. The compartmentation and subsequent complexities through which this occurs between different identities can not be both precisely and accurately defined.  With respect to identity, the single system of measure which is necessary for mathematics is also a part of the environmental niche.  The standard to be used therefore affects compartmental identity. 

The economics of applied mathematics to complex physical compartmentation always requires inferential reasoning and metaphoric logic to get and maintain "what is better."  These often called "less pure" methodologies are necessary in part because mathematics simply does not fit perfectly with what we observe and can model within the physical universe.  Just as it is easy to rationalize a perfect visual representation of a circle and impossible to calculate its perfect circumference, any ideal that attempts to substitute mathematical logic for certain identity will generate errors with respect to precision and accuracy.           

But what does any of this have to do with Globalism?  To answer this question we must realize that societies consist of compartmented niches and identities. When compartmentation is changed, the fundamental relationship of identity changes. The dynamic is that traditional economic monetary trade supports the well being of compartmentation, while Economic Globalism represents a deliberate act to break down trade barriers.  In other words, unqualified Globalism effectively destroys the compartmentation of social identity, while the act of trade replaces it.  But it is not just the nature of the concept of Globalism that fails, but also the instrument of Globalism.       

Unlike what many capitalists may like to believe, money is not a universal standard of measurement.  It should be obvious that bridging complex individuals within societal relationships through monetary metrics in different environments is difficult.  The reason is that it is not an accurate way to consider relationships.  A single monetary system does not really resolve this problem.  An American twenty dollar bill in New York City does is not the same thing as an American twenty dollar bill in Bombay India and not just because of the face value or acceptability of the currency.  For one thing, the kinds and levels of risks that may be considered acceptable and are expected within the two different cultural environments are very different.  It is easier to squeeze far higher personal catastrophic risk from those who have more need. Without the additional legs of universality from monetary standards with the necessary additional degrees of inferential and metaphoric resolution, there can be not true measure of the bridge between the niches. 

Within science there are two basic classes of experiments essentially separating the concept of the observation from that of the action.  Noninvasive experiments attempt to observe and understand through selective observations that have a minimum impact on that which is being observed.  Invasive experiments attempt to deliberately mandate change in order to observe the changes.  Monetary exchange simply does not allow us to understand the true measure of change expected to take place because it mandates rather than predicts societal expectations.         

Economists often mislead themselves as well as others about what they do. Humanity as a whole is not driven by economics, humanity drives economics.  Humanity invented monetary economics because we invented currency.  Human beings use monetary economic tools to create social change.  Economic Globalism is a concept that has put the cart before the horse in order to justify the greed of unbridled predatory profit. The idea that Economic Globalism only represents the end result is as foolish as it is dangerous because Globalism is being defined as both the ends and the means.  

Global Economics arrives at our door with a tremendously complex clash of unknown and unintentional social values.  From the individual human perspective, these can often involve the gulf between that of simply living a gentle and independent identity as opposed to a complexly interdependent, commercialized and generalized one.  The two edged sword of Global Economics is that it destroys the dynamic social protections of compartmentation as it lays open profit making opportunities.            

In its purest form, Globalism is another erroneous attempt at utopia.  Pure Globalism attempts to cure the fundamental economic problems of the planet that arises through the unequal distribution of opportunities through wealth.  The idea is that through universally sharing such opportunities, the needs of the poor will somehow be alleviated.  Idealized Globalism is therefore essentially based in the utopian faith that inequality is the basis of poverty so that to eliminate inequality of compartmentation is to eliminate poverty.  Poverty can be eradicated by forcing market forces of supply and demand to affect equal distribution of wealth. Opportunities of supply and demand equalize the differences between those who have too much and those who do not have enough.  None of these things have been proven to be true.  Moreover, the relationships between financial wealth and the quality of life are not measurable. 

But the problem with Globalism is not merely that it is an unproven utopian ideal.  It is that that it naively views profit in terms of the economics of supply and demand of resources.  Economic Globalism establishes the concept of profit based regulations as an attractive solution to social inequality through the implication that a fair and equal distribution of wealth can only be achieved through the reorganization of self serving compartmented regulatory practices and the subsequent free trade.  But the grand theory of Globalism does not truly account for the context through which it's profits are accumulated, nor does it account for its potential greed and corruption which were and are the original and underlying reasons for compartmented regulatory practices.  

The social compartmentation which Globalism decimates is a natural aspect of both self determinism and human survival mechanisms.  Through social compartmentation, humanity has been able to store maintain a rich and vital well of alternative social solutions, living philosophies from which new knowledge can be carried. The assumption of those who would endorse Globalism is that such philosophies can be recorded and preserved and that assumption is based on the idea that living philosophy is the same as that which is logical. 

The haunting reality is that the expansion of Globalism as an ideal fails because it replaces compartmentalized problems with its own. The risks of the centralization of identities becomes the risk of generalized failure, and of universal civil war.  There is the risk from Globalism that through the use of technology, individuals have as much or greater influence than the majority.  There is also the risk that ancient differences can be resurrected while new ones are generated.  Globalism implies the risk of Global totalitarianism and the Global expansion of imperialism.  Globalism risks the implications of lock step trade agreements that create disillusioned populations. In return for their ethnic identities and their natural resources, third world countries are offered subordinate acceptance.  Those who would believe that this perspective will not be realized underestimate the intelligence and the intensity of the cultures in third world countries.                       

The impending failure of the Washington Consensus of Globalism is the failure of an unbearable social experiment. It is a blind experiment that is being used as a pseudo scientific tool by the richest to pillage and profiteer from the poorest in the name of righteous economics of freedom and equality.  Globalism is the fuel that is placing great stress on the already most impoverished.  Globalism can be described in its own right as an extremist and far ranging social experiment of the same caliber and scale as Communism. The potential failure of Globalism is that its consequences are the same.  As with Communism there may be wondrous things that can be seen by thinking globally, but in doing so we must remember that what occurs is the assumption of tremendous risks for individuals within economic diversity.




Copyright (c) 2001-2007 RDFollendoreIII All Rights Reserved