|
|
25 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Case Against Globalization in the Post-Cold War World, August 11, 2000
John Gray, professor of European thought at the London School of Economics, describes and analyzes the contemporary trend toward a global free market in this an exceptionally provocative book. Unlike Thomas L. Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree and A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization by John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge (both of which I reviewed here in July), this book is highly critical of the unrestricted expansion of the international economy and integration of its markets. Indeed, Gray begins by warning: "The Utopia of the global free market has not incurred a human cost in the way that communism did. Yet over time it may come to rival it in the suffering that it inflicts." That is a very harsh indictment! One of the great intellectual debates of the coming decades may revolve around this question: Does the global economy meet human needs? According to Gray, the answer is "No." For instance, he writes: "In the United States free markets have contributed to social breakdown on a scale unknown to any other developed country. Families are weaker in America than in any other country. At the same time, social order has been propped up by a policy of mass incarceration." Gray acknowledges that, "[t]he world-historical movement we call globalization has momentum that is inexorable," but inexorability is not desirability. Globalization may not be desirable because, according to Gray: "The late-twentieth-century free market experiment is an attempt to legitimate through democratic institutions severe limits on the scope and content of democratic control over economic life." Gray then asserts: "The free market is not...a gift of social evolution. It is the end-product of social engineering and unyielding political will." If Gray is correct, what is globalization's political objective? I do not believe he ever makes that clear. According to Gray: "Free marketeers tell us that the unprecedented productivity of a rational economic system will remove the causes of social conflict and war." But Gray counters: "Throughout nearly all of human history, wars have arisen from territorial and dynastic conflicts, from religious and ethnic enmities, and from the divergent economic interests pursued by sovereign states." Contrary to many predictions following the collapse of the Soviet Union, according to Gray: "The threat to peace has not disappeared with the end of the Cold War. The nature of war has merely mutated. One consequence of an anarchic global economy has proved to be a world awash with weapons." Gray asserts that there is a risk "that sovereign states will be drawn into a struggle for control of the earth's dwindling natural resources. In the coming century ideological rivalries between states may well be succeeded by Malthusian wars of scarcity." Gray is especially concerned about the expansion of the global free market and threats to the environment. In both Russia and China, according to Gray, "partly as an inheritance of central economic planning and partly as a consequence of market reforms, environmental degradation is cataclysmic." Furthermore, Gray asserts: "If advanced societies are able to protect their environments...it will be partly because they are able to export pollution by moving production to Third World countries where environmental standards are looser." Some of the most interesting and provocative passages in this book concern Russia and China. One chapter is entitled title: "Anarcho-capitalism in post-communist Russia." In it, Gray writes: "The anarchic capitalism which replaced Soviet central planning is surely a developmental phase, not an endpoint in Russian economic development." According to Gray: "In less than a decade Russia has moved from a functioning totalitarian regime to near anarchy....The species of capitalism that is emerging in Russia today is deeply marked by its Soviet antecedents. The criminalized markets that flourished in the recesses and interstices of the Soviet state thrive now in its ruins." Gray also is concerned about globalization's impact on international political stability. According to Gray: "In a world in which market forces are subject to no overall constraint or regulation, peace is continually at risk. Slash-and-burn capitalism...kindles conflict over natural resources. The practical consequence of policies promoting minimal government intervention in the economy is that, in expanding regions of the world, sovereign states are locked in competition not only for markets but for survival. The global market as it is presently organized does not allow the world's peoples to coexist harmoniously." Gray frequently compares the first two decades of the 20th century, in which fierce competition for markets and colonies led to two world wars, to our own time. Although I find this comparison somewhat extreme, it is a chilling thought. Some readers will find this book unfair in its extended attack on American economic, political, and cultural values. Gray asserts that the "global free market is an American project," and he predicts that is "destined to fail. In this, as in much else, it resembles that other twentieth century experiment in utopian social engineering, Marxian socialism.... Each was ready to exact a large price in suffering from humanity in order to impose its single vision on the world. Each has run aground on vital human needs." Gray quotes Lee Kuan Yew, formerly Prime Minister of Singapore and now that country's Senior Minister: "Americans believe their ideas are universal - the supremacy of the individual and free, unfettered expression. But they are not - never were." Without agreeing with Gray, I believe his larger point is that the people of the U.S. may be too optimistic about the long-term, far-reaching effects of globalization, and this point should be well taken. In summary, Gray's critique of globalization asserts that the global free market contributes to international economic inequality; that increased international economic competition is likely to result in serious environmental degradation; and that international tensions, especially those arising from divergent economic interests, could result in war. If Gray is correct, the next two decades could be very unpleasant. Readers may not agree with Gray, but all of us should give careful thought to the concerns which he articulates here.
|