Noam Chomsky responds to a question about feasibility of Latin American countries developing an alternative to the Washington Consensus and provides his view of globalization.
The term “globalization,” like most terms of public discourse, has two meanings: its literal meaning, and a technical sense used for doctrinal purposes. In its literal sense, “globalization” means international integration. Its strongest proponents since its origins have been the workers movements and the left (which is why unions are called “internationals”), and the strongest proponents today are those who meet annually in the World Social Forum and its many regional offshoots. In the technical sense defined by the powerful, they are described as “anti-globalization,” which means that they favor globalization directed to the needs and concerns of people, not investors,financial institutions and other sectors of power, with the interests of people incidental. That’s “globalization” in the technical doctrinal sense. Latin America is now exploring new and often promising paths in rejecting the doctrinal notions of “globalization,” and also in the remarkable growth of popular movements and authentic participation in the political systems. How successful this will be is more a matter for action than for speculation.
Globalization of today, as it is portrayed for Chomsky, has clear winners and losers – it benefits financial institutions while hurting the workers, because investors and financial institutions direct globalization in a certain direction as to exclude others from enjoying the benefits. He couldn’t be further away from the truth. Contrary to the point of view expressed by Chomsky, many of the economic studies point to the opposite and show that both workers and investors benefit from globalization. Further, it is not two separate processes or a process that is managed and controlled from some central office. The real problem in many developing countries, however, is that there is a line drawn between people who do and do not have access to the system – which means that poor people in many instances can’t gain access to the benefits of globalization. However, it is not by some magic decisions of investors and financial institutions that people are barred from participating in globalization and reaping the benefits of trade, it is due to institutional barriers, like corruption. For more, on how globalization reduces poverty and where critics of globalization got it wrong, see “In Defense of Globalization.”
Published Date: March 24, 2006