Halting globalisation

How can we halt globalisation?

It is not by demonstrations, and by peaceful or even violent civil disobedience.

It is by understanding the dynamics and the vested interests of globalisation, and by becoming a proactivist^[1].

Globalisation is happening because there are individuals that benefit from it, just as absolute poverty persists because, in the end, there are individuals that benefit from its persistence.

This is not about conspiracy theories.  It is about human nature^[2] and about default social dynamics^[3].  If we do nothing globalisation will continue and poverty will persist, just as environmental degradation will not only continue but accelerate.

We must take the battle directly to those who benefit^[4] so that the personal costs of their actions outweigh the personal benefits.

This is not an incitement to violence.  Many individuals can be swayed through appealing to their reason, their emotion,  their conscience, and their self-interest..  Others can be influenced indirectly through their families and peer groups^[5].

We must examine and modify our own actions and those of our families and peers, lest we see the mote in our neighbour's eye and not the beam in our own.

We must also act politically under political banners that dissimulate our underlying agenda.  

The majority^[6] has no interest in esoteric notions of long-term survival^[7] and diversity^[8], especially if these are perceived to threaten their immediate comfort and consumerism.

Ironically, to protect global cultural diversity  we need to become locally intolerant of cultural diversity.  Equally, to protect global economic diversity, we need to become locally intolerant of "free trade".

Cultural intolerance and economic protectionism are both populist causes that will be readily embraced by voting majorities.  They do not need to be complicated by other considerations.

As a counter to the globalisation of culture^[9] each of us needs to know who we are^[10], what defines our predominant national cultures; and each of us needs to draw a line in the sand.  This is not to become impervious to all change and growth, but to say "this is what I believe in", "these are the values I and my co-citizens hold dear", and you as a guest in my home, or as a migrant to my country^[11], shall respect and abide by these beliefs and values.

This holds true for any nation or bloc of nations with a predominant culture.  It is expected of a Western European democracy with denied Christian roots as much as it is expected of an Islamic theocracy.

The adoption of a dual public/private morality^[12] by any nation would allow for the co-existence of numerous cultures and value systems within its borders.  But it may be expected that such a tolerant approach would be the exception.

On the economic front the fallacies of global "free trade"^[13] need to be continually exposed.  The advocates of "free trade" have held the floor for too long without concerted and coherent opposition.

The economic alternative should not be presented as a return to the protectionist and interventionist policies of the past.  To the contrary, the undoubted merits^[14] of truly competitive and informed markets should not be denied.

The argument rather is that "free trade" as it has been promoted is not free or fair at all.  We need to act to ensure that international competition is indeed fair if it is to be beneficial overall.

If a country is genuinely able to produce and export a good much more cheaply than the importing country, so be it.  Don't force its production in the importing country.

But if the reasons for a country being able to produce a good more cheaply include labour practices or environmental harm that would not be tolerated in the importing country, allowing the unfettered trading of the good would be immoral as well as unfair.

At the very least the immorally produced good should be subjected to a differential impost that reflects the indirect social and environmental cost of its production^[15].

Such differential product charges would be levied at the level of individual producers, and not at particular nations.  Within any nation including your own there will be producers with acceptable practices and those that are exploitative.  Modern technology allows us to micro-manage in this manner if we wish to.

Thus the economic argument is not about seeking national self-sufficiency or even about protecting local employment opportunities.  It is not about xenophobia.  It is not anti-consumerist.  The argument is about leveling the international economic playing field and making it a fair competition - fair among nations and fair among generations, including those not yet born^[16].

Government agencies that monitor and act against anti-competitive behaviour need to move onto the front foot rather than apologising for their existence.  They need to be more worldly and be more sceptical of profit motivated entities.  The onus of proof, once a suspicion of unfair play has been aroused, should be on the player - the individual producer, not the referee, and not the country of origin. The referee also needs to be constantly on the ball.  A large producer in China can obliterate viable producers in small economies by dumping a single production run into their markets.

Even without differential product charges, each of us as consumers right now has the power to choose what we consume based on what we know or suspect about a product's production.  That is assisted by  adequate and truthful product labeling, for which we should lobby continuously in the face of the resistance of commercial interests.  In all likelihood, our informed choice will cost us more, but it is a price we will be prepared to pay as moral consumers.