The role of the intellectual is to challenge neoliberalisms discourse of inevitability- its the crucial first step in building a broad coalition to challenge exploitive practices of globalization

(Vanaja, Globalization: Discourse of Inevitability, and a Quest for a Just and Caring World, Society-Societe, 24:2)

A discourse of inevitability surrounds this process. This process is naturalized to such an extent that many people have come to believe that there are no alternatives. It is not that people are unaware of the negative consequences because the evidence is everywhere for people to see. It is that the feelings of helplessness are so widespread that many seem to have resigned themselves to accept that there are winners and losers in this game of life. The strategy often adopted is to explore ways and means to make the best of circumstances and try very hard to be a winner rather than a loser. But the reality is that there are very few winners and many losers. It is becoming obvious that if this trend continues the way it is proceeding the ranks of winners will shrink even further while the ranks of losers will continue to expand. It is not difficult to understand why people believe and behave the way they do when we realize that, even though we live in a democracy where each and every one of our interests should count, government policies favor the economic elite at the cost of rest of the population. Under such circumstances people come to believe that they have no influence over the direction of life. The events that unfold are experienced as beyond one’s control. Thus the general strategy is to try to make the best of bad circumstances. There is also a widespread conviction that markets somehow operate on their own and have a life apart from the rest of social life. There is a general lack of awareness that human agency is involved in this process and markets are controlled and manipulated by people. Markets are social constructions just as any other social institutions we have in society. One of the reasons for such a belief is that the markets are controlled by a select group of economic elite, and people in day-to-day life experience these events as natural and beyond their control. The media, generally controlled and directed by this powerful segment of the population, facilitates the spread of such misinformation. Most importantly, there is a firm conviction among some segments of the population that corporate sponsored globalization is good for everyone. It is based on the belief in the ntriekle down” theory of economics, which argues that strong capitalists produce jobs and pay their workers well because they need consumers to buy their products. Thus according to this theory there is a kind of symbiotic relationship between producers and consumers. Even though it looks good on paper, empirical evidence suggests that in practice it does not work that way. This is particularly so in the context of the current style of globalization where trade is borderless. The producers do not have to worry about having consumers for their products within their own countries. If there are not enough consumers in one place they go in search of another. But such awareness is not widespread and many people are still swept up by the mystique of a free market ideology, and they continue to advocate the practice of privileging corporate interests over the interests of people who are in need. For example, in the national and many provincial budgets in Canada, there is often no money to be found to address homelessness, child poverty or to clean up the environment to reduce health hazards. But banks and other corporations that make obscene amounts of profit lay off workers and get tax cuts. The corporations continue to propagate the rhetoric of competitive advantage but refuse to be held accountable for creating jobs and investing profits they make in the communities in which they made the profits. Instead they diversify their investments and move their operations to places where it is financially lucrative for them. For example Alcan in British Columbia obtained many concessions, such as no environmental review for their operations, and various tax advantages, but the people of British Columbia are not benefiting much from any of this since the company is investing its profits elsewhere and creating jobs in another country. Thus depleting the economy by subsidizing the corporations and lowering environmental standards is not in the public interest since the corporations have escaped from their obligations to communities from which they benefit. Sacrifices by local communities for the global adventures of corporations without any tangible benefits are not justifiable. The corporations not only do not want to have any obligations to the public while they enjoy many privileges, they also do not want to be accountable to governments. Through sponsorship of politicians by their donations to political parties and candidates corporations tend to have undue influence on government policies. There is an urgent need to reform the way we finance our election practices so that public interest will not be compromised. One way of doing it is to streamline the costs of the political process and collect funds from ordinary citizens by giving tax incentives. If nation/states become true democracies committed to serving the interests of all the citizens, not just the economic elite, the corporations will not be able exert undue influence on policies. More importantly, governments can pass laws that effectively control the antisocial behavior of corporations and hold them accountable (Langdon 1999). They could then no longer have all the rights without the accompanying responsibilities. On the global level also we need democratic institutions that can control the destructive, predatorial behavior of corporations and hold them accountable. It is important to realize that corporations behave the way they do because they are allowed to. Globalization of trade without global structures to enforce proper conduct on corporations that serve public interest is one on the reasons for our predicament (Hahnel 1999). Effective democracies that rule in the public interest would be able to control the belligerent behavior of corporations. If we have democratic structures on the international level where both rich and poor countries have effective voice, creditor and debtor relations can be reasonable and the trade relations can be fair. The immoral and unethical practice of collecting debt repayments many times more than what was given as credit, as has happened in places like sub-Saharan Africa, one of the poorest regions in the world, will not be allowed to happen. IMF collected $643 million more in repayments than it provided in new loans in 1997 and collected $390 million more in 1998 than it lent. The hit and run movements of speculative capital that strip societies of their wealth almost overnight can be stopped (as happened in Mexico in 1995 and Asia in 1997). International laws can be enacted and agencies put in place to protect people and the natural environment from the restructuring policies imposed by the creditors. All countries could have the freedom to construct their economies to suit their needs based on their history and culture and have a right to specify under what conditions capitalists can invest and withdraw their investments from their countries. Under such conditions the interests of children in Africa would be, for example, as important as those of the children in affluent countries. If we accept the truism that all life is precious, we can create enabling environments to protect, sustain and enrich all life. These issues do not even enter the debate because the neoliberal paradigm is not about justice, care or morality. It is only about serving one’s economic interests. All other concerns are external to this paradigm. Human life is not an end in itself within this ideological context but is a resource for economic enrichment. Even a discussion of morality, spiritual needs, quality of life is not possible in this context. But that is what life is about. Granted that we need economic resources to sustain ourselves to lead a moral and spiritual life. But we are not resources for the economy. Because the focus is only on profit maximization, within the neoliberal paradigm no cost other than the one with monetary value is taken into account. Instead, arenas that have life affirming and life enhancing values are invaded and converted into profit regimes. Patents and property rights are invading the civil commons thus affecting our health and wellbeing. As McMurtry (1998:24) writes, Civil Commons is ... the vast social fabric of unpriced goods protecting and enabling life in a wide and deep seamless web of historical evolution that sustains society and civilization”. No arena is sacred or beyond the reach of the greed of capitalist exploitation. The food we eat, the seeds we use to grow food, the water we drink, public spaces where we gather as a community, even our genetic makeup is being invaded by this profit regime. Corporatization of educational institutions is becoming the order of the day. Schools are getting computers on condition that they listen to commercial advertisements in the classroom. Corporate sponsored research is becoming commonplace in universities and hospitals. Commitment to this ideology is akin to religious fundamentalism. No alternatives are even debated or remotely considered as viable. In the context of religion, if people complain things are not working well, they are told that they are not religious enough. In the same way, if we point out that the free market economy is not working in our interest, we are prescribed more of the same. We are told that we need more deregulation, more competitive advantage, more efficiency and more and more concessions to corporations. We are constantly exhorted to race to the bottom. Once people wear these ideological blinders, they cannot even see the damages they are creating. For example, in atelevision interview during the recent meeting of the WTO, the world bank president was asked to explain the unrest of protestors outside against the WTO policies. His response was that the WTO has failed to communicate their ideas to people effectively. Therefore people do not understand the work the WTO does. In spite of the evidence of all the havoc that has been created in various parts of the globe where countless number of lives have been destroyed, all he could see was a failure of public relations. He just could not see or hear the pain and agony being expressed by people demonstrating outside who were in fact speaking for many millions more who could not be there. To confront this problem, we must first stop thinking that this process is inevitable and that there are no alternatives. We need to realize that if this process is inevitable, those who are in charge of implementing the project need not be so diligent in manipulating public opinion and controlling and directing politicians and bureaucrats. They do not have to insist on framing agreements in secrecy and be reluctant to discuss the means and goals openly and forthrightly. Obviously the project does not just happen. Those with vested interests are devising various strategies to implement the project. People need to know how the process of globalization is structured and whose interest it serves as well as the ideology behind it. In other words, they need to know the anatomy of this project. Raising such consciousness is the most important first step. As Gramsci argues (1987), the role of intellectuals and moral leaders cannot be overestimated in this context. But real change can come about only through broad-based grassroots participation. A social movement can have a broad social base when people in general are convinced that things do not have to be the way they are and that there can be a better way. Resisting globalization in its current form is obviously a monumental task. But grassroots movements have successfully resisted many such oppressive regimes historically. For examples of such resistance, one has only to read about, and reflect on the struggles in South Africa against the apartheid regime or the national liberation movement in India against the colonial regime as examples. In each case the discourse of inevitability was vocal and widespread. Anti-racist and feminist struggles are still going on in Canada and around the world. Even though some inroads have been made, we have a long way to go to achieve the goals of equality and justice. Discourses of inevitability regarding race and gender hierarchy are still evident. One of the reasons for the persistence of such discourses is that globalization in its present form is being built on the residual structures of patriarchy, colonialism and imperialism. A few gains made during decades of struggle are gradually being eroded. Feminization of poverty is a world-wide phenomenon (Vickers: in press). Control over life chances of nonwhite people all around the world, to a large extent, is not in their hands. This is true in the case of women in general also. Discussions are going on at the present time in different parts of the world among different groups of people to devise strategies to confront and resist this process and to transform society to address the needs of all people. Feminists are one such group engaged in such discussion. (4-7)