cj#960,rn> Part I, Introduction – “Globalization and Western society: destabilization and betrayal”


Richard Moore

                 "Achieving a Livable, Peaceful World"

Part I - Corporate rule and global ruin: understanding the dynamics of
today's world
Introduction - Globalization and Western society: destabilization and betrayal

In May 1998, at the United Nations building in Geneva, US President Bill
Clinton opened his keynote address with the words, "Globalization is not a
policy choice; it is a fact". The occasion was the fiftieth anniversary of
GATT (General Agreement Tariffs and Trade), the first of the postwar
free-trade agreements.

His statement suggests a number of questions: What is globalization? Where
did it come from? Where is it heading? What does it mean to ordinary people
in different parts of the world? What does it mean for national sovereignty,
and for constitutional democracy? Whose interests does it serve? Why does
the world's most powerful leader say that even he has no choice about it? Is
globalization really inevitable?

Market forces -- old wine in new bottles
At the heart of globalization is the doctrine of free trade and a belief in
the virtue of market forces. This doctrine, enunciated most clearly in 1776
by the Scotsman Adam Smith, came to dominate the Western world in the
nineteenth century(1). Economists called it "laissez-faire capitalism", and
philosophers justified it as "Social Darwinism". Smith spoke of market
forces as an "invisible hand": if each individual and business pursues their
own self-interests, then a kind of "invisible hand" will, theoretically,
guide the overall economy to society's best advantage. Smith backed up his
conclusions with an early example of systems analysis, showing how the
forces of supply and demand act themselves out in the marketplace, with
beneficial effect. There is, however, an all-important proviso: Smith's
analysis requires that society provide sufficient guidance -- market
regulation -- to ensure fair and open competition. If monopolies are allowed
to arise, they upset the workings of the invisible hand and they amount to a
form of tyranny. For the "invisible hand" of the market to work for societal
benefit, government must provide an overseeing "guiding hand" in the form of
regulation and anti-monopoly enforcement.

     People of the same trade seldom meet together... but the
     conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some
     contrivance to raise prices.
       - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Wealthy industrialists, in the nineteenth century and again today, were
happy to adopt Smith's notion of unfettered markets, because it maximized
their freedom to make money. But they were also happy to ignore his warnings
about government regulation. The laissez-faire doctrine is one of
unregulated free markets -- a perversion of Smith's model, with the
tyrannical consequences Smith anticipated. The result then, as now, was the
creation of powerful monopolies -- large enterprises which dominate and
manipulate markets to their own advantage. In economic theory, free markets
are about fair exchanges among large numbers of small producers and
consumers. But in political reality, the free-market doctrine results in the
concentration of wealth into a few hands.

In the US, the nineteenth-century laissez-faire period is sometimes called
the "robber baron" era. Magnates like John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and
Andrew Carnegie (US Steel) built gigantic economic empires. Such "robber
barons" forced competitors out of business or bought them out. They
monopolized transport, energy, and finance, and charged "whatever the
traffic will bear". With their wealth, they exerted considerable power over
government policy -- Rockefeller bragged about how many Governors were "in
his pocket". Economic power was translated into political power, which only
served to further consolidate economic power. In the nineteenth century,
national economies were being integrated and monopolized by colorful robber
barons; today, faceless transnational corporations (TNC's) are integrating
and monopolizing the global economy. Once again "free competition" is the
rhetoric while concentration of wealth and power is the reality(2).

     The masters make the rules, for the wise men and the fools...
       - Bob Dylan, "It's Alright Ma (I'm only bleeding)"

Capitalist elites play a central role in the dynamics of a laissez-faire
era. It is through their political influence that the laissez-faire doctrine
becomes government policy, and it is through their monopolistic ambitions
that they come to dominate economies. The reality of a laissez-faire society
is the exploitation of society by a wealthy, capitalist elite(3). The
free-market rhetoric justifies their freedom of action, but it does not
deliver the societal benefits that Smith envisioned. The nineteenth century
was a time of widespread exploitation of child labor, poor wages, long
working hours, dangerous working conditions, no pensions or sick-pay, dire
poverty, boom-and-bust economic cycles, giant monopolies and trusts,
super-wealthy magnates, and government corruption.

During the Irish Famine of the 1840's, while hundreds of thousands were
starving, Britain refused on principle to provide assistance: such
assistance would interfere, said the British Government, with market forces.
Meanwhile, British landowners exported tons of food daily from Irish
ports(4). Today, as disease and famine infest the third-world, market forces
are offered once again by the West as the prescribed solution. And once
again coffee and beef plantations, for example, export tons of products
daily from the same countries which are experiencing famine(5).

Today, as then, the rhetoric of free markets is used to justify exploitation
of those at the bottom, while at the same time giant corporations exempt
themselves from the harshness of free-market discipline. They instead avail
themselves of government subsidies, lucrative government contracts,
expensive bail-outs, and favored tax treatment(6). An investment fund for
billionaires, "Long Term Capital Management", got in trouble recently due to
its own unwise gambling in the markets. The US Federal Reserve quickly and
quietly organized a $3.5 billion bail-out fund. In contrast, when a
hurricane left 10,000 dead and millions homeless in Central America a few
months later, through no fault of their own, the West's rescue package came
to a mere $200 million -- less than six percent of the bail-out figure(7).

The conditions of the nineteenth century laissez-faire era were so
deplorable that massive popular movements arose against the regime of
capitalist domination(8). Labor unions, socialist movements, and reformist
groups worked stridently for higher wages and better working conditions, the
busting up of monopolies and trusts, regulation of banking and industry, and
the reform of government. Suppression of union movements was brutal, with
the government and police usually siding with management during strikes and
disputes. Whenever a depression or major recession occurred, which happened
regularly, these popular movements gained added strength. The laissez-faire
era gradually gave over, in fits and starts, to an era of reform. Capitalism
continued as the primary engine of the economy, but most Western governments
began to impose a "guiding hand", as Adam Smith had insisted they should,
and as John Maynard Keynes and others rediscovered. Competition was
re-introduced where monopoly had prevailed, and many of the reforms which
workers and others had fought for were eventually implemented(9).

Postwar prosperity and the Crisis of Democracy
This tide of friendlier capitalism reached its peak in the postwar
(post-1945) era. In the US, there had been Roosevelt's New Deal, and when
the war was over, returning soldiers received educational and housing
subsidies. The US had effective labor protections, anti-trust legislation,
regulated industry, stabilized finances, a Social Security pension program,
and an economic policy aimed at general prosperity and low unemployment. The
savings and loan industry was established to make home ownership available
to millions(10). In France, the Front Populaire (1936-38) had already
achieved considerable social gains(11). In postwar Britain and Europe
extensive social programs were implemented, including free health care,
housing assistance, and government operation of transport and utilities.
Corporate profits soared, and the taxes they paid kept budget deficits
within manageable bounds. Western prosperity seemed to be climbing
ever-upward, and the prosperity was being shared by large segments of the
population -- particularly the burgeoning middle classes(12).

By 1948, the Bretton Woods agreements had led to a stable international
financial system, backed up by the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)(13). Major currencies were given fixed exchange rates to the
dollar, and the dollar was fixed at $35 per ounce of gold. Western nations
enforced controls over the flows of capital across their borders, and the
IMF and World Bank acted as flywheels to stabilize international finance.
The Bretton Woods arrangements served as a "guiding hand" to the global
economy, and the hyper-inflation and currency collapses which followed World
War I were avoided, at least in the West.

In the postwar era it seemed that capitalist and popular interests had
achieved a mutually beneficial political arrangement in the West. With this
friendlier version of capitalism, one might have expected Western
populations to be grateful and content. But at the crest of Western popular
prosperity and well being, in the sixties and seventies, massive movements
arose against what was called "the establishment"(14). The civil-rights,
anti-Vietnam War, environmental, and "New Left" movements gained strength
and achieved political influence.

Middle- and upper-class youths, the prime beneficiaries of postwar
prosperity, championed these protest movements. They questioned the actions
of their governments, the organization of their societies and even the
motives of their elders. Those elders -- who still commanded the heights --
reacted with shock and anger. And perhaps as well with fear.

Abraham Maslow (1908-70), with his "hierarchy of needs", can perhaps help
explain this postwar youth rebellion. According to his observations and
research, people must have their basic needs satisfied before they pay much
attention to their higher needs(15). The most basic needs are physiological,
such as for food and sleep. After that comes security, membership in family
or group, and self esteem and recognition. Only after those are all
satisfied are people likely to worry about their highest needs, which Maslow
described as "self-actualization".

The prosperous and rebellious youth of the sixties were raised in the
postwar era. Unlike their parents, who had lived through depression and war,
they rarely had to worry about their basic needs. They were the first
Western generation, since industrialization at least, where a majority was
able to indulge themselves with "self-actualization"(16). And,
significantly, they were a generation that had been raised on the grand
rhetoric of justice, universal democracy, the end of imperialism, and the
defeat of dictatorship.

Apparently, the youth of the sixties believed fervently in the rhetoric they
had been raised on, and given the freedom to "self-actualize", they seemed
determined to make the rhetoric come true. Some chose to "drop out" and
indulge in personal "self actualization", but many others became politically
active. "Freedom Riders" risked their lives to assist the Civil Rights
movement in the American South. Students held strikes and "teach in's", and
physically attacked university facilities that were associated with
militarism. Counselling networks were set up in the US to help young people
understand their rights as war protesters and learn how they could avoid
being sent to Vietnam. Globally popular entertainers such as Bob Dylan and
Joan Baez developed the protest-song genre, and sang out blistering moral
attacks on racism, exploitation, and military adventurism.

These kinds of activism, largely non-violent, created a potential crisis for
the capitalist system, as the youth generation grew up and eventually would
become a voting majority. If they retained their idealism, and their
rejection of materialist values, it did not bode well for maximizing
capitalist growth and development. Elite planners took note of this crisis.
In 1975, Samuel P. Huntington, an esteemed member of the influential
Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, offered his analysis
in a paper called The Crisis of Democracy(17).

According to Huntington, democratic societies "cannot work" unless the
citizenry is "passive". The "democratic surge of the 1960s" represented an
"excess of democracy", which must be reduced if governments are to carry out
their "traditional policies", both domestic and foreign. Huntington's
priorities are clear: the capitalist system comes first, government's role
is to sustain it, and "democracy", whatever that may be, cannot be allowed
to interfere. That is to say, the purpose of government in Huntington's eyes
is to control the people, not to represent them. In 1980, Alan Wolfe, in the
anthology Trilateralism, wrote:

     The warning that comes across clearly from a reading of The Crisis
     of Democracy is that some people with access to the center of
     power now understand that the change in popular attitudes toward
     government will necessitate a rapid dismantling of the whole
     structure of liberal democracy(18).

     Note: "Liberal" has nearly opposite meanings in the US and Europe.
     The European sense of "liberal" is similar to the American term
     "conservative", while the American Heritage dictionary defines
     "liberal" as "political views or policies that favor civil
     liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of governmental power
     to promote social programs". Wolfe uses the American sense of the
     word. The term "neoliberal", of European origin, is essentially a
     synonym for "laissez-faire" -- the doctrine of unregulated free

There are good reasons to take notice of Wolf's warning, regarding the
"rapid dismantling of the whole structure of liberal democracy". For one
thing, Huntington is indeed a person with "access to the center of power".
Ideas published by elite think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission and
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) frequently become US policy in later
administrations. In old issues of Council's Foreign Affairs journal, and in
the memorandums of the Council, one can find the origins of many of the most
significant US policy decisions of the twentieth century, such as when to
enter World War II, and how to restructure the postwar world(19).

Not every idea generated by elite think tanks is adopted as policy, but
there is considerable evidence that Huntington's Crisis of Democracy
reflected a consensus of elite thinking. Since his article was published in
1975, there have been several radical shifts in Western policy, each of
which has served either to undermine democratic institutions, to disempower
nations, or to dismantle the structures of society itself. These policy
shifts are in fact rapidly "dismantling of the whole structure of liberal

The destabilization of Western societies
One of the policy shifts was described above -- the re-introduction of the
doctrine of laissez-faire economics. This undermined a century of social
progress in the West, abandoned government's attempt to provide a beneficial
"guiding hand" to the economy, and brought government policy-making into
line with elite corporate interests.

Another shift which occurred during this period was the destabilization of
the Bretton Woods arrangements(20). Already in 1971 US President Nixon had
taken the US off the gold standard, removing the underpinning of Western
monetary stability. Following that, exchange rates were allowed to float,
and currency speculation became a profitable venture. Western nations began
to relinquish their controls over capital flows and "offshore tax havens"
came into existence. The system of international finance became unregulated,
unstable, and speculative. Bretton Wood's "guiding hand" was removed from
the global economy, and control over international finance was effectively
transferred from elected governments to private banks, investors, and

A global speculation market developed which is now many times larger than
the global commercial economy. In what amounts to a pyramid scheme, money is
created by leveraged speculative transactions in great quantities, so great
that most national treasuries are dwarfed in comparison. As was demonstrated
in Southeast Asia, this unregulated system can destroy reasonably sound and
productive national economies almost overnight(21).

In another shift, the IMF and World Bank reversed their agendas. Instead of
stabilizing international finance, they started using their power to destroy
national economies and to impose laissez-faire policies on nations that
didn't want them(22). In Southeast Asia, instead of helping the nations to
get back on their feet, the IMF forced operationally healthy businesses into
bankruptcy and presided over the dismantlement of economies. The devastating
effects of IMF policies in Africa, Latin America, and the former Soviet
Union are almost unbelievable. In Rwanda, for example, a healthy economy was
systematically destroyed, contributing directly to the total collapse of
society and a genocidal civil war(23).

The radical shift toward laissez-faire policies was launched in 1980, with
the successful campaigns of Ronald Reagan in the US, and Margaret Thatcher
in Britain. Under the rhetoric of "smaller government" and "economic
reform", the old, failed, laissez-faire doctrine was re-introduced. The
history of the previous century was forgotten, along with the reasons why
social programs and regulation had been introduced in the first place. All
the credit for existing prosperity was given to capitalism, now referred to
fondly in the corporate-controlled media as the "efficient private sector".
The regulation and social reforms which had stabilized capitalism and made
it more bearable were re-defined to be "government interference". "Reform",
in an Orwellian reversal, came to mean the dismantlement of reform(24).

The flagship policies of this new regime were referred to in official
rhetoric as privatization, deregulation, and reform. Privatization, which
applied primarily in Britain -- the US had always been largely privatized --
meant that the government began to sell off infrastructures to private
investors at bargain prices -- infrastructures which had been developed at
considerable public expense. Consumers typically gained some immediate
benefits from these transactions, but the promised "benefits of the market"
had been greatly exaggerated. In the rhetoric, the benefits of
better-managed operations, it seemed, would go directly to the consumer. In
fact, as public services were taken over by private monopolies, "efficiency"
turned out to mean the downsizing of workforces, reductions in quality and
reliability, and cut-backs in infrastructure investment. Apart from some
initial price cuts to consumers, the benefits went mainly to corporate
stockholders and to corporate executives, who received immense bonuses for
their bold "efficiency" measures(25).

Deregulation meant that decades of stabilizing regulations -- the "guiding
hand" -- were rapidly removed, with predictable results. Merger-mania
erupted, as firms sought to leverage their way toward monopolistic
dominance. Industries which had been isolated by regulatory barriers, such
as America's savings and loan industry, became vulnerable to looting by
operators eager to siphon off their assets into more lucrative investments.
Conservatively and responsibly run firms, such as California's Louisiana
Pacific Lumber company, could be raided by junk-bond speculators, with their
assets either sold off, or else developed recklessly in order to generate
the short-term revenue necessary to pay off the junk-bond debt. The
"economic growth" experienced under deregulation has had more to do with the
gathering of markets into fewer hands -- the incredibly profitable TNC's --
than with the generation of productive economic activity(26).

Reform, besides referring to generic compliance with a laissez-faire agenda,
also meant reducing the taxes of corporations and the wealthy, increasing
subsidies to corporations, eliminating social services, backtracking on
labor rights, and generally cutting back the beneficial functions of
government. This agenda represents nothing less than a wholesale transfer of
assets, revenues, and power from elected governments to corporations,
leaving governments and societies impoverished and disenfranchised. It
amounts to a massive assault on the well-being of Western societies, brought
about by corporate domination of the political process, and backed up by a
deluge of anti-government and pro-private-sector propaganda in the
corporate-controlled media(27).

This momentous policy shift was known in the US as the "conservative
revolution", while in Europe it came to be known as the "neoliberal
revolution". It spread to the rest of the West, and beyond, and became a
central part of the globalization process. It was originally seen as a
radical political initiative in 1980, but by the end of the decade it had
become the new political center in the West(28). In 1991, with the signing
of the fiscally conservative Maastricht Treaty, European government leaders
committed Europe as well to a "neoliberal" economic future(29).

But of all these historic shifts in Western policy that have followed the
publication of The Crisis of Democracy, perhaps the most significant has
been the "free-trade" revolution. Free trade had been a nominal part of
Western policy ever since the GATT agreement was signed in 1948. But in
1995, in the Uruguay Round of negotiations, the World Trade Organization
(WTO) was created. GATT had been a treaty; the WTO is a membership
organization, with a permanent bureaucracy centralized in Geneva. The
finance ministers and other Western officials who act as delegates to the
WTO generally come from a background in private banking and industry, and
their perspective reflects elite corporate interests. The senior staff
members and policy makers of the WTO are almost exclusively representatives
from large transnational corporations(30).

Few people have even heard of the WTO, and yet it has enormous influence and
power. Completely dominated by elite corporate interests, it has the legal
power, by binding and enforceable treaties, to overturn national legislation
on a broad range of issues. Any member nation of the WTO can bring an action
against another member, under the WTO, if it feels "unfair trading
practices" are occurring. The US recently undertook such an action against
the European Union, and the WTO forced the EU to stop subsidizing Carribean
banana growers(31). In another action, the EU was forced to allow the
importing of hormone-fed beef from the US(32). In the latter case, the EU
claimed its restrictions were health related, and not motivated by trade
considerations. But the WTO decided otherwise, and there is no appeal from a
WTO decision.

"Free-trade zone" agreements, such as the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), go even further. While under the WTO one nation can take
an action against another, under NAFTA, a corporation can undertake an
action against a nation. In a recent case, the US-based Ethyl Corporation
took an action against Canada, which had banned the chemical MMT when
scientists found it to be a dangerous neurotoxin(33). Ethyl claimed this was
a case of "trade discrimination". Faced with the expense of fighting the
action, and given the corporate domination of the NAFTA bureaucracy, Canada
capitulated. The ban on MMT was overturned, and Canada agreed to pay $13
million in compensation to Ethyl. The scientific evidence had not changed,
but it was irrelevant to the overall policy-making process.

Western leaders have recently been pushing forward a new treaty which would
extend NAFTA-like provisions to most of the world. Under the terms of the
MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments), any corporation which does
business in more than one country could bring an action against any nation
on the basis of "investment discrimination"(34). This could be used to
overturn environmental protections, fishing limits, safety regulations,
worker rights, product quality laws, and any number of measures which could
be interpreted -- by a panel of corporate representatives in their secret
MAI hearings -- as being "discriminatory" against an investor's "right" to
maximize profits.

If the MAI isn't adopted -- the negotiations are currently stalled -- there
are contingency plans in the works. There have been discussions of
implementing MAI-like provisions through other channels, such as the
IMF(35). And there has been talk of a huge new "free-trade zone" that would
bind together Europe and North America, allowing corporations to bring
actions against the EU or its member states(36).

The global regime -- world tyranny and global devastation
What is called "free trade progress" has actually been the quiet transfer of
sovereignty -- over a broad range of policies -- from elected governments to
corporate-dominated commissions such as NAFTA and the WTO. This transfer of
sovereignty has been a low profile operation. The powerful but faceless
commissions are rarely mentioned in the mass media, only occasionally
written about in major newspapers, and most people are unaware of the degree
to which the traditional powers of nations have already been signed away.
Largely unnoticed, a corporate-dominated global regime is being
consolidated, and legal precedents for its authority -- such as the actions
against Canada and the EU -- are being quietly but firmly established.

Besides the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, there is also the OECD
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Each of these
centralized bureaucracies is dominated by corporate interests and adheres to
a neoliberal, free-trade agenda. While the WTO achieves its authority
through free-trade treaties, the IMF wields similar power by attaching
conditions to the loans which it grants. With the OECD serving as a global
elite think-tank, setting longer-range policy guidelines, this collection of
institutions has become in all but name an official world government(37).

In the poor countries of the third world, in the former Soviet Union, and in
the former tiger-economies of Southeast Asia, this de facto global regime
has shown that it can act with utter ruthlessness. Austerity programs for
the masses, bailout programs for corporations and investors, and
destabilization programs for national economies -- these have characterized
the actions of the IMF(38). But in the West, the regime has been relatively
inactive -- except for a few carefully chosen test cases. Thus most of us in
the West have little idea how much our societies have already been
undermined. Why is the power of the WTO and NAFTA being held back? Why
aren't they being used wholesale to overthrow environmental laws, worker
protections, etc.?

There is a popular anecdote about cooking frogs. If you throw a frog into
boiling water, according to the anecdote, it will jump out, but if you put
it in cold water, and gradually heat it up, it won't realize what's
happening, and will allow itself to be boiled to death. Whether or not this
applies to real frogs, it seems to be an apt metaphor for the situation
Western citizens now find themselves in. Our societies are being dismantled
from around us. But instead of one great conflagration, which might cause us
to protest, the dismantlement is happening in stages, and it is happening
largely behind the scenes. The relative inactivity of the WTO and NAFTA, it
seems, is nothing more than shrewd political timing.

Nonetheless, Western society is being dismantled at an alarming rate. In the
two dozen or so years since Crisis of Democracy was published, the Bretton
Woods "guiding hand" has been removed from international finance, and
neoliberalism has become the dominant global doctrine. In the West,
corporate tax reductions have impoverished national budgets, national
infrastructures have been privatized, social programs have been dismantled,
and governments have signed away their sovereign powers to
corporate-dominated commissions(39). If Western society were to be
dismantled any faster, people might notice and become alarmed.

In the nineteenth century laissez-faire era, capitalist interests reigned
supreme in the West, but they did so within the context of sovereign nation
states. Over time, using the political process of the nation state, people
were able to achieve victories against corporate power, culminating in the
social gains of the postwar years. Now once again, capitalist interests
reign supreme -- only this time in the context of globalization. What the
free-trade treaties do, ultimately, is lock in capitalist hegemony. As long
as Western governments continue to dismantle themselves voluntarily, and
give corporations a free hand, there's little need for the full power of the
globalist regime to be unleashed. But if political sentiment in the West
were to mount against laissez-faire policies, then the de-facto world
government in Geneva is established, and is fully prepared to set economic
and social policies for the whole globe(40). Meanwhile, globalization brings
a return of the abuses of the nineteenth century, but greatly magnified.

In the third world, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is systematically
destabilizing societies and economies on a wholesale basis -- creating
widespread poverty, disease, and starvation. To much of the world,
globalization is just a new name for imperialism, but with its pace of
exploitation intensified, and with genocidal consequences. Honduran children
labor for pittance to produce overpriced sneakers for our stores. Labor
unions are undermined and shrugged off as irrelevant (in the US) or
suppressed by force (in most of the third world). National economies,
subject to forces wholly beyond their control, collapse with results ranging
from painful (Indonesia) to catastrophic (Rwanda).

In the West, unemployment is not only accepted but embraced as a defense
against inflation. Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, praises
"fear" -- the fear of being fired -- as a desirable component of a stable
economy. Real wages decline as workers are forced to give back gains
achieved in years of union power, are made "redundant", or are "downsized"
into less rewarding or temporary jobs. Small farmers are forced out of
business, and into unemployment, as bank lending policies and market forces
favor ever-larger agribusiness operations. Meanwhile, corporate profits
skyrocket and stock markets -- or at least the flagship one on Wall Street
-- boom(41).

Commerce, trade, and finance are being monopolized on a global scale, with
ownership in each business segment being concentrated into the hands of a
few TNC's. These immense conglomerate empires, with their single-minded
dedication to never-ending growth, are like a cancer -- their unrestrained
development projects are destroying societies and the life-support systems
of the Earth itself. Ozone depletion, global warming, destruction of
topsoils and rainforests, pollution of air and water, exhaustion of
fisheries -- these trends threaten the survival of humanity and they are
being accelerated by so-called economic growth(42). Under globalization,
capitalism has grown beyond the point where even a "guiding hand" could
correct its excesses. Unlimited growth is simply not possible forever in a
finite world.

Most of us in the West don't realize how close we are to living under an
official corporate global government, one with no popular representation, no
bill of rights, and whose only god is market forces. The eighteenth-century
Western monarchies became twentieth-century republics -- will the new
millennium return us to tyranny, but on a global scale? And, as citizens, is
our only recourse to wait and see?

Globalization represents a dire crisis for constitutional democracy, the
sovereignty of republics, human well being, and the very survival of life as
we know it on the planet. But in crisis there lies opportunity as well as
danger. The very abuses and excesses which are rising to the surface under
globalization create the seeds of a global counter-movement. As more and
more people come to realize that the future promises only increased
suffering, there is hope that they will rise up in solidarity to build
together a better world.

This book is dedicated to that hope.

     Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
     than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
       - US Declaration of Independence (1776)

     Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens
     can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
       - Margaret Mead(43)

Footnotes are still under construction -- watch this space.


                        a political discussion forum.
                          crafted in Ireland by rkm
                             (Richard K. Moore)

        To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.•••
        A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
                (mailto:•••@••.•••     http://cyberjournal.org)

  **--> Non-commercial reposting is encouraged,
        but please include the sig up through this paragraph
        and retain any internal credits and copyright notices.
        Copyrighted materials are posted under "fair-use".

        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!

                A community will evolve only when
                the people control their means of communication.
                        -- Frantz Fanon

                Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
                committed citizens can change the world,
                indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
                        - Margaret Mead