cj#812> 1st of series: “Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative”


Richard Moore


            Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative
               Copyright 1998 by Richard K. Moore
                 5 August 1998 - •••@••.•••

                First in a series: "Introduction"

        NOTE TO READERS: This material, and subsequent pieces in the
        series, are a "draft book in progress".  They are being distributed
        on several internet lists, and further forwarding is encouraged.
        Please forward only in complete form, with original headers and
        signature.  And _please, copy your comments and suggestions directly
        to the author at •••@••.•••.  The developing book will be
        maintained on "http://cyberjournal.org".

This book is an investigation into capitalism, democracy, imperialism,
nationalism, and political change.  These turn out to be intimately related
themes in a drama which has been unfolding for the past two centuries.
Corporate globalization, or what many call the neoliberal project,is a
crisis turning point in this drama, with profound consequences for all of
our topics.

Corporate globalization (I'll just call it globalization) is indeed a
project -- a coordinated, coherent suite of initiatives -- and it is
unfolding on a canvas much broader than is generally appreciated.  Tight
budgets, competitive markets, downsized companies -- these aspects of
globalization are known to nearly everyone.  Those who inform themselves --
and there are many useful books available -- learn that globalization also
brings accelerating environmental damage, increased poverty, destabilized
societies, a house-of-cards global financial system, and a severe threat to

But even that does not adequately capture the scope of the globalization
project.  I hope it will become clear, as this investigation unfolds, that
globalization amounts to an overall restructuring of the world order, a
political rebuilding project that goes very deep.  The image that comes to
mind is a block of small shops being bulldozed away to make room for a
shopping center.  Globalization is a revolutionary project, not an
evolutionary one.

In globalization's new world order, it is democratic governance and
national sovereignty which are to be bulldozed clean from the global
building site.  The system of strong national republics, which was the
West's heritage from the Enlightenment era, is being systematically
dismantled.  Political arrangements are being scraped way back, and old
political strata, so to speak, are re-emerging.

In some ways, globalization scrapes us back to the robber-baron era of the
late nineteenth century, when laissez-faire capitalism reigned supreme,
boom and bust cycles were frequent, and politicians were "in the pockets"
of magnates such as John D. Rockefeller and the J. Pierpont Morgan.  Today
they call it deregulation instead of laissez-faire, and it is giant
transnational corporations (TNCs) that exert the political influence
instead of colorful robber barons, but the game is the same, and the
results are identical.

In other dimensions, the globalization project is scraping back even
further, taking us back to the feudal era, with wealth and power
concentrated in the hands of a super-rich elite, and with the rest of us
reduced to a kind of disenfranchised serfdom.  We are to have
no-entitlements employment, instead of fiefs, and the relationship of the
person to the TNC is becoming that of vassal to lord.

In still other aspects, globalization takes us all the way back to the
Roman Empire, only this time on a global scale.  Instead of an Emperor and
Roman Legions, we have a World Trade Organization (and associated agencies)
and a high-tech US/NATO strike force.  And again the once-sovereign
citizens of republics are being reduced to consuming bread and circuses --
and to unquestioned obedience to arbitrary imperial pronouncements, as
Korea recently learned at the hands of the IMF (International Monetary
Fund), and as Iraq learned under the barrage of Desert Storm.

Globalization also takes us forward in time, to the worst nightmares of
science-fiction lore.  ID-card technology, already being tested around the
world, and the rapidly developing global digital network, are ushering in
an era when every person can be tracked from birth, and every activity can
be monitored in real time.  Meanwhile, thousands of genetic experiments are
being unleashed on the world, with utter disdain for the awesome risks
involved, and with complete disregard for the ethical and spiritual
questions raised by playing God with the very fabric of life.  Technology,
under globalization, is being developed systematically and recklessly, with
the dual aims of defending corporate power and enhancing corporate profits.

US President Bill Clinton opened a recent speech to the UN in Geneva, on
the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of GATT, the first of the global
free-trade agreements, with the statement "Globalization is not a policy
choice; it is a fact."  He is well aware that it is a policy choice, but in
the broader sense is he right?  Is globalization politically inevitable?

In every crisis, according at least to the Chinese ideogram for crisis,
there is both danger and opportunity.  The opportunity brought by
globalization is for people everywhere, from all walks of life, to wake up
to the dire threat that faces them, and to do something about it.

The globalization regime is too thoroughly entrenched for meaningful reform
to be accomplished through standard political channels.  And the corporate
system is too dependent on endless "growth" for economic reform to be
possible within the terms of that system.  Only a radical restructuring of
economic arrangements can provide for livable, sustainable societies.  And
only a radical shift of political power -- the dethroning of the corporate
establishment -- can create a political environment in which such a
transformation can be accomplished.

History shows that radical political change of this kind comes about only
under certain conditions.  There must first be some constituency, or class
if you prefer, that is aware of itself.  Next, that constituency, in its
collective self-awareness, must be motivated: it must be faced by
unacceptable conditions, and there must be a shared vision of a preferred
alternative.  Finally, there must be a means available, by which the
constituency can effectively achieve political power and implement its

The central thesis of this book is that these conditions are potentially
present today, latent in the circumstances of globalization.  The
constituency for radical change are ordinary people everywhere.  In much of
the Third World, people have already identified globalization as a source
of dire danger, and are organizing themselves into peasant movements and
other modes of mass resistance.

But the mechanisms by which the West dominates the Third World are
formidable, having been perfected over centuries of colonialism.  Only when
people in the leading Western nations wake up to the threat as well -- and
in their shared danger achieve collective self-awareness -- can a
constituency arise that is sufficiently powerful to overcome the
globalization juggernaut.

The means available to such a constituency, to achieve radical change, is a
global grass-roots political movement.  The bulldozers have not yet
completed their tasks -- our democratic institutions still exist, for the
time being, and nations, the major ones, still have the power to undo the
globalization project -- but only for a while, only until the institutions
of globalization have fully consolidated their absolute power.  Until then
a mass movement could achieve political power through peaceful elections,
and implement programs of radical transformation before it is too late.

This investigation will take a critical look at various past movements,
seeking to understand how they succeeded and how they failed.  We will
learn that every movement has a predictable set of obstacles to overcome,
ranging from internal divisiveness to co-option at the very gates of
would-be triumph.  The most serious obstacles, however, are to be found
following victory.  From the unlikely lips of George Bush was articulated
the central principle of radical change, it's "that vision thing."

Martin Luther King understood about vision.  He said to millions "I have a
dream!" and he articulated the importance of keeping ones "eyes on the
prize."  Gandhi's vision was particularly deep and far-sighted, and he was
up against odds that could only be overcome with the help of such
outstanding vision.  A movement must have a sound vision, a vision that
inspires, and a vision that can be translated into workable policies and

Indeed the vision of a livable world is being articulated by people
everywhere.  A wealth of useful published material is available, regarding
sustainable systems, appropriate technologies, locally-based economies,
electoral reform, financial stabilization, stronger civil societies,
corporate reform, etc.  ad infinitum.  This investigation will develop an
overview of this emerging vision, and will provide references to further
information.  The basic elements of a societal vision have been developed,
and the technical problems are solvable.

There is one primary area, in this author's opinion, where an adequate
vision has not been articulated, and that area is democracy.  This
investigation will look closely at the question of democracy, from a broad
historical perspective.  In particular the experience of the Western
Democracies will be reviewed critically, and we will ask the unthinkable
question: Have we been living under democracies or under plutocracies?  We
will also look beyond the standard democratic models, and dare to examine
the Cuban system, and systems used by indigenous societies.  A vision of
grass-roots democracy -- genuine democracy -- will be developed, grounded
in successful precedents, as a contribution to the "vision thing."

In fact the question of genuine democracy arises when the movement is still
in its early stages.  A massive global movement must find a way to
coordinate itself, to find a sense of common direction, and of solidarity.
This movement won't be led by an existing aristocracy, as was the American
Revolution, nor does it come with a pre-packaged ideology, as did the
Russian Revolution.  It is rising from the people themselves, starting from
a thousand places around the world, and a thousand circumstances, and with
a thousand agendas.

As the movement evolves, one can hope that it develops democratic ways of
operating, and finds ways to develop consensus agendas that originate from
the grass roots.  Such a movement, in fact, can become the vehicle of
genuine democratic governance.  Not a political party, such a movement
would be better characterized as an empowered civil society -- a sound
basis, I will argue, for a robust and lasting democratic system, which is
in turn a sound basis for a sustainable, humane, and livable world.

These then are the themes to be developed in this investigation.  The
purpose of this book is to inform and to empower -- to broaden the
perspective from which globalization and democracy are understood, to
encourage the development a global democratic movement, and to raise the
issues that must be faced by such a movement if it is to ultimately achieve
its goals.  Your humble author may or may not succeed in this mission, but
he wants to be clear about his objectives.

           a political discussion forum - •••@••.•••
     To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.•••
        A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
        (mailto:•••@••.•••     http://cyberjournal.org)
             Non-commercial reposting is hereby approved,
         but please include the sig up through this paragraph
        and retain any internal credits and copyright notices.
       To see the index of the cj archives, send any message to:
       To subscribe to our activists list, send any message to:
        Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance
                   crafted in Ireland by rkm
                A community will evolve only when
        the people control their means of communication.
                                  -- Frantz Fanon