It appears that the biggest socio-political division of our time is no longer between rightist and leftist political trends, as it was during the Cold War era. It is between nationalism and greater globalization. Washington is caught between a shift from managed international economics and trade and the new patriotic nationalism at home.
By Nicholas Dima | October 6, 2015
Economic globalization is going to be one of the most critical issues of the 21st Century. The process is advanced by powerful transnational corporations and is often detrimental to average people because it lacks societal roots. Many studies and statistics have shown, for example, that while certain U.S. corporations get bigger and wealthier the American middle class is suffering from low wages and job loss. The process intensified under the administration of President Barack Obama. If globalization runs its full course, the world will be dominated by a few corporations, governments will lose their prerogatives, and people will be heavily indebted to financial institutions. America will be no exception!
The process of globalization has deepened the gap between rich and poor countries and has indebted many nations. The amount some countries owe internationally is staggering. Romania was the only post-communist country that repaid its full debt just before the collapse, but the effort ruined it. At the time of repayment, Romania’s foreign debt was 10 billion. Today, as a full EU member, it is 170 billion dollars. Yet, Greece is the latest case imperiled by international indebtedness.
A country of only 10 million people, Greece’s international debt is 360 billion dollars, a huge amount that Athens could not repay. To avoid a default, Athens received another EU loan worth 90 billion. The truth is that Greece, as well as many other countries, will never be able to repay their debts. This time Athens even tried to turn to Moscow for help, and Russia was too happy to interfere and create new problems for the West.
Who caused the immense current gap between rich and poor countries and between rich and poor people everywhere? The problem is that the powerful business elites in America are now the main promoters of globalization. In a way, the process is like a 3rd International. The first two internationals were communist. The Soviet Union was the center of the communist camp and Moscow’s goal was global. The Russian people did not like communism, but they were proud of being in the center of world attention. Communism did not work because it was brutal and imposed against the very nature of humanity. Since those days, the tactics have changed, but the purpose of global domination has remained. These global elites want to remain in control. From their point of view, if political communism did not work, economic globalization should.
Globalization is enticing the world with cheap labor, low cost material goods and promises of a better future. Communism relied on the Soviet Union and promised a bright future, but that future never materialized. Is globalization relying now on America? In his well documented 2008 book Superclass–The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making, David Rothkopf states that the United States seems prepared militarily to take on the entire world. Is this military readiness for the promotion of the new globalization ideology? Who will the winners be? Maybe some corporations will, but not the American people.
American patriots have already challenged the process of globalization at the grassroots with its attendant loss of jobs and industries moved overseas, along with its established leadership represented by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, home of the Fortune 500 transnational corporations.. These elite business interests want free labor migration, open borders and the end of the nation-state. Free trade no longer means the freedom to trade with other countries but the desire of transnational corporations to be free from rules, unless they have been prefigured in their favor and memorialized in the so-called multi-national free trade agreements. However, if in past decades Washington concentrated on the liberty and prosperity of the American people, now its political elites exhibit an unmatched global avariciousness, while neglecting its own people. Although an avid free trader President Reagan would have never given in to this process. Why is the U.S. supporting the process?
In fact, globalization is only the economic arm of The New World Order. It appears that the biggest socio-political division of our time is no longer between rightist and leftist political trends, as it was during the Cold War era. It is between nationalism and greater globalization. Washington is caught between a shift from managed international economics and trade and the new patriotic nationalism at home.
Internationalism is the goal of the socialists. Will America side with Main Street or Wall Street? Will America return to Judeo-Christian values, or will it succumb to libertinism and materialism? Responsible researchers have concluded that if the current trends continue and if the needs of average people and established nations are not addressed properly the world could end up in a crisis of… global proportions.
Nicholas Dima, Ph.D, is a former professor and author of numerous books and articles including the autobiographical memoir, Journey to Freedom, a description of the effects of communist dictatorship on a nation, a family and an individual. He currently lectures and is a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.