is this colonization? Round table #19

Globalization is colonization? Round table #19
Swearing on the merits


Publication date: February 12, 2002

Should Russia deal with global institutions, organizations and movements (including the anti-globalist movement)? Maybe we have already become a colony long ago? In that case, whose? Disputes on global issues are led by:

Nikolay Shmelev , academician, director of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Nikolai Gonchar , State Duma deputy;
Mikhail Delyagin , director of the Institute of Globalization Problems;
Svyatoslav Kaspe , head of information and analytical programs of the Russian Social and Political Center Foundation.

Nikolai Shmelev: Globalism today can be called the currently established world market, which does not recognize national borders and requires the free passage of goods and services through any planetary territory.

Svyatoslav Kaspe: The very process of globalization of world systems can be defined as a tendency towards establishing the socio-political dominance of Western Christian civilization since the time of the Great Geographical Discoveries. Today, globalism is a form of a special socio-political revolution, which is a systematic part of global evolution.

Mikhail Delyagin: Globalization is the process of forming a single global financial and economic space based on new, mainly computer technologies. This understanding, introduced in 1998, has become, if not generally accepted, then the most widespread. The qualitative difference between globalization and the previous era of integration (I was indignant for a long time about one doctor of sciences who wrote about “globalization in the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries” until I received a student’s thesis on globalization in the Ice Age for review) is generated precisely by these technologies. In practice, globalization means, first of all, a radical tightening of competition, the most important tool of which is the use of technologies for the formation of consciousness.

And who now shapes our consciousness? Hollywood?

Nikolai Gonchar: Globalism is not just the integration and unification of the world space, subordinated only to economic realities. First of all, this is a political projection of a unipolar world under the guise of Pax Americana on the rest of the countries of the planet, in which the United States plays the role of the main unifier and integrator of these processes.

Nikolai Shmelev: Globalization has a face and its main conductor is the United States. However, it would be wrong to assume that the United States consciously insists on the unconditional entry of the maximum number of participants into the orbit of influence of globalization. It is already clear today that not everyone is “pulled” into globalism and this process itself is evolutionarily inevitable and, to some extent, historically natural.

Nikolai Gonchar: By the way, the latest demarches of Europe, expressed in support of Maskhadov’s emissaries, only indicate that Europe also does not like the overly warm relations between Moscow and Washington. Europe makes it clear to us: you are running too fast in this direction. Russia needs to remember that in the global harem ruled by the Shah-America, there is room for only one main wife - Europe.

That is, you need to “hurry slowly” - as the Chinese recommend...

Nikolai Shmelev: Chinese civilization, unlike ours, is several thousand years old. In matters of civilizational survival, they are smarter and older than us. The fact that they are now “easily” joining the WTO does not mean anything.

Nikolai Gonchar: The question may arise: why don’t we accept Chinese recipes for survival in the face of the onset of globalism? But a counter question arises: where will we find so many Chinese? Firstly, China began to adapt to globalization earlier and exercised more political control over the situation. Secondly, political liberalization lags significantly behind the development of its own economic base. Therefore, there may be a feeling that political liberalization does not exist or that the very sphere of its interaction in the modern world is becoming tougher.

Mikhail Delyagin: Supporters of forced accession to the WTO like to poke the eyes of their opponents with the experience of China: the Chinese negotiated for 17 years and ultimately entered on qualitatively worse terms than those initially offered to them. The mistake in this reasoning lies in the typical Russian liberal approach to time: the tacit assumption that it is wasted. Meanwhile, China did not spend, but won, these 17 years and entered the WTO as a qualitatively different country than the one that was invited there. For old China, even the favorable conditions of 17 years ago would have been fatal. The new one has become so strong that even today’s difficult conditions are beneficial for it. China has developed a high-tech industry and today is ready to give up part of the textile industry and agriculture in order to facilitate access to world markets for high-tech products. The Chinese thought it was paying off.

Nikolai Shmelev: The Chinese have been preparing to join the WTO for about 20 years, and they are very carefully “dosing” the degree of their involvement in globalization processes. As a result, the Chinese are now ready to accept far from the best conditions for their existence in the WTO; they are ready to “open” their economy to global competitors, although not on the most optimal terms. But they can now “pull” their membership in the WTO, unlike us. Apart from our raw material producers, hardly anyone else is capable of giving a worthy response to globalism; our economy is not ready to “be like China.” China "delayed" the issue of its WTO membership for 20 years and gained this time. With a surplus and impressive foreign exchange reserves, you can afford to enter the WTO and invite competitors from all over the world. But what we need is not China’s slowness, but its optimality. To fully open our markets to competitors from all over the world means putting the remnants of our economic infrastructure under the knife. Therefore, we need to pursue a structural policy and be guided by clear economic priorities, and if there is even the slightest chance of saving, say, the dying textile industry, then we need to save it.

Is it worth rushing at all?

Nikolay Shmelev: As with everything, globalization has its pros and cons. There are also risks in taking these pros and cons. There is a developed system of global competition, labor markets, and the effective dissemination of global technical achievements, which, within the framework of globalism, proceeds very quickly, and not as in the closed space of the USSR, when we were forced to reinvent the wheel every time. But there are also “costs”: the invasion of mass culture, the subordination of the country’s national interests to the interests of transnational capital and the United States as the spokesman and main inspirer of globalization, etc. Is it possible to find a balance? It is difficult to give an unambiguous and comprehensive answer to this question.

Svyatoslav Kaspe: For Russia, both negative and positive options for inclusion in the globalization process will be equally risky. It can become equally dangerous for us to go “out into the street” and get hit by a brick - or to sit at home, in fear of the “brick,” risking being buried under the roof of a collapsed house. The balance of costs from joining the WTO is difficult to formalize; there cannot be accurate statistics here. Intuitively, one can only assume that the risks of exclusion from globalization will be higher, and any option of pursuing an autarkic policy will be more disastrous for Russia. But, nevertheless, Russia’s unconditional adherence to the Western globalization model cannot please us, although the policy currently being pursued by the Russian leadership is the most adequate at the moment.

Mikhail Delyagin: Globalization leads to the deepest and most diverse division of humanity. On the one hand, the gap between developed and developing countries is becoming insurmountable (including for technological reasons). On the other hand, in developed societies themselves, a gap also arises between people connected and unconnected with technologies for the formation of consciousness - these groups simply think differently, use different languages.

We should not forget about the danger for everything “down-to-earth” that is dear to us

Mikhail Delyagin: Any integration, including its highest phase to date - globalization, threatens cultural identity. Suffice it to remember that, for example, Russian cultural identity still bears traces of integration from the era of the Tatar-Mongol yoke (although it has recently become clear that not only the radio and the Americans attributed to the radio, but also the obscenities attributed to the Tatar-Mongols are also primordially Russian invention). However, the culture of a strong, growing society survives by absorbing external influences and enriching itself at their expense, together with the society that is its creator and bearer - even with the help of the protective measures that it generates (for example, French culture is protected by introduction of a minimum quota for the performance of French music on radio and television). The culture of a weak society fades away along with it, and globalization only aggravates this process and undermines the viability of relatively weak societies. I don’t really understand what China’s accession to the WTO has to do with the loss of cultural identity. Chinese culture is so specific and rooted that it is not in danger of disappearing as a result of globalization.

Svyatoslav Kaspe: Globalism is very dangerous for the cultural identity of the country. It leads to a simplification of the cultural mosaic, although it introduces a lot of new private cultural forms. However, it must be clearly understood that culture is a more viable mechanism than it appears. And in the event of a collision with globalism, its existence as such is not threatened, but specific cultural forms can change dramatically.

Nikolay Shmelev: Globalism presupposes both integration and unification. Both processes are parallel and inevitable.

Maybe, in this case, Russia should be friends with anti-globalists?

Nikolai Shmelev: I haven’t liked anti-globalists since 1969. I understand perfectly well that their dissatisfaction is a natural product of the costs of the spread of globalization processes in the world. However, breaking windows and setting cars on fire has little correlation, in my understanding, with solving the real problems that globalism brings with it. Anti-globalists are unlikely to be able to solve anything objectively.

Svyatoslav Kaspe: There is nothing positive in anti-globalism. Anti-globalists cannot offer any specific positive program of action, except for the primitive slogan “leave us our shops.” In a sense, they are an analogue of globalism, taking alternative forms. But there is no targeted development in anti-globalism. Russia now cannot lead anything in the world, including support for anti-globalization projects. This is harmful and risky. We must look for national benefit in each specific case, and there can be no general recipes here. Today, Russia's national interest may lie in supporting globalist projects, tomorrow - in cautious distancing from them.

Mikhail Delyagin: Opponents of globalization can oppose it with the same thing that the Luddites could oppose to the spread of machine tools: nothing. Anti-globalists, of course, use the tools and attributes of globalization - computers, the Internet, and technologies for the formation of consciousness. This is natural: partisans always mastered the enemy’s weapons if they were better. Normal people do not give up quality for the sake of ideology. Another thing is that the use of the tools and infrastructures of globalization does not change their negative attitude towards it.

Nikolai Gonchar: Anti-globalists can integrate worldwide dissatisfaction with America’s course (and it exists, and it is very large, even if we do not talk about the countries of the Islamic world). Although the globalization of the anti-globalist movement itself, judging by the name of their congress in Brazil, looks somewhat comical. The contours are the same, but with different content. These events cannot be cheap, so it is logical to assume that in the financial and economic system itself, generated by globalism, there are powerful forces dissatisfied with the dictates of the United States.

Svyatoslav Kaspe: There is nothing fundamentally new for civilization in the topic of globalism and anti-globalism. Any round of evolutionary development of the socio-political systems of the planet is one way or another accompanied by inevitable bursts of marginalization, from which the simple conclusion follows that everything in the world, including social systems, has side effects. Anti-globalism, as a typical side effect, is quite pronounced and, indeed, is capable of maintaining public interest in itself for some time. But it faces the same inevitable fate as the “green” movement, which were once “planetary heroes”, and are now either on the social periphery or integrated into the political systems of many countries (as, for example, in Germany in the 90s years).

What to do?

Nikolai Gonchar: Russia, before counting the profits from its adherence to the policy of globalism, should remember that you have to pay for everything. It must be said that the danger of the invasion of the realities of globalism primarily offends our pride. If we admit this, then we will be realistic and will follow the path that Japan followed after the Second World War, which it lost. We are the same losers, and we need to accept the following without unnecessary hysterics: for today and for the near historical future, globalism is the only reality. Therefore, we need to behave as if we were Sweden or Luxembourg. I foresee numerous objections to the topic “we are a great country!” However, a country about which its neighbors say so is considered a great power. A great country cannot have such an economically insignificant GDP. We are leaving our military bases in Vietnam and Cuba only because we can no longer afford them, and the Americans cannot help but come there, possessing large material, financial and political means of influence. Our survival in the context of globalization processes will depend on the level of the political situation and only on how much we defend the national interests of our own country. To do this, we must very calmly, balancedly, pragmatically and without emotional snot, learn to sell what we have as dearly as possible, without prejudice to the national interests of Russia, which from now on should become our only domestic and foreign policy criterion. By the way, the United States is doing the same thing all over the world.

Mikhail Delyagin: Are there any practical benefits from globalization processes for Russia? There are benefits, but there are also harms. What is a problem for the weak and stupid is an opportunity for the strong and smart. It's time for us to improve. Our risks depend on our development paths. The main thing is the formation of the consciousness of our elite not by our society, but by its strategic competitors, which forces society to pursue not its own interests, but the interests of these competitors. It is not entirely clear how Russia can become one of the “satellites of globalism.” If we mean sacrificing national interests, then the price for this is life, and we know this from the experience of the 90s. The meaning of the challenge posed by Russian history is the need to learn, without irritating the United States, to carry out modernization and not sacrifice national interests. I know little about the constructive projects of anti-globalists. But I think their slogans, as opposed to their practices, should be shared by every decent person. What can be said about the protest against the exploitation of child labor? Poverty? The slogans of anti-globalists are as true as 2x2=4. But the fact that Alexander the Great is a great commander is not yet a reason to break chairs. I believe that Russia needs to participate more actively in the work of the “anti-Davos” forum of developing countries, using it as one of the channels of influence. It is necessary to put forward new initiatives regarding the creation of a new, more equitable world order, global financial infrastructure, it is necessary, in the end, to support ATTAC in terms of taxation of transnational speculative capital... Today we are not so strong as to refuse any opportunity to influence peace, but we must work to win peace.

Nikolay Shmelev: What immediate benefits can Russia receive from globalism? The problem of Russia's accession to the WTO is by no means the number one problem for the Russian economy. At best, we get $2.5-3 billion a year. At the same time, the flight of capital from the country amounts, according to the most minimal estimates, from $25 billion annually, and this money is unlikely to return to Russia, settling in the offshores of Cyprus and other countries.

Svyatoslav Kaspe: We still have to develop some criteria for survival. Firstly, this is a rejection of the practice of sweeping aside the idea of ​​unconditional solidarity with the center of power, to the detriment of the world periphery, and secondly, a clear pursuit of national interests in each specific case.