Category: Nationalist Theory

General, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Corporate Globalism and the God of Efficiency

Bob Claude |

We all have heard of Adam Smith and his theory of the invisible hand of the free market. Few know the name of David Ricardo, a nineteenth century British economist who developed the theory of comparative advantage that is the basis of the current system of international trade. It has since morphed from a mere economic theory to an ideology used to justify corporate and elitist power. It’s fixation on efficiency has shamelessly fueled inequality and ignores its own weaknesses in explaining the real world of today’s economy.

Ricardo’s theory posited that countries should specialize in producing goods in which they have a comparative advantage in either labor, capital or land costs. The classic example is a difference in labor costs. If a country could produce a good at a lower cost because of lower wages, then other countries should trade with that country for good and concentrate on producing others. When countries specialize based on comparative advantage, global production increases, leading to more efficient resource allocation and lower consumer prices.

Comparative advantage formed the basis of the growth of international trade over the last decades of the 20th century. However, it remained only an economic theory until New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman began championing the process in a series of books that quickly became the gospel of corporate globalism. In his book “The World is Flat”, Friedman regaled his readers with how Asians were lifting themselves out of poverty by performing low wage jobs in the new “flat” world of free trade. At the same time, he unwittingly demonstrated the dangers of this trend when he told the story of New London, Connecticut, and its transformation in the new world. An economy once based on shipbuilding and defense work declined to become a gambling mecca with a small elite pharmaceutical research center. Friedman celebrated this decline in an eerie echo of Ayn Rand when he wrote

Change is hardest on those caught by surprise. Change is hardest on those who have difficulty changing too. But change is natural; change is not new; change is important. Work gets done where it can be done most effectively and efficiently. That ultimately helps the New Londons, New Bedfords and New Yorks of this world even more than it helps the Bangalores and Shenzhens.

Here are the tenets of corporate globalism for all to see,  The American Dream, national strength, and family income security are all offered in sacrifice to the god of corporate efficiency and income. Indeed, Friedman said it should be a primary goal of public policy to foster this trend and improve the lives of everyone around the world, despite the impact on its own citizens and national security. 

In the process, Friedman and corporate globalists glossed over the real world weaknesses of this socioeconomic model. First, it assumes markets are in perfect competition and there are no trade barriers, a practical impossibility in a world distorted by the mercantilism of Chinese and other countries. Comparative advantage also assumes that externalities such as environmental pollution are confined to the country that elects to endure them. Carbon emissions know no such boundaries and so developing countries and China can power their economies with coal while exporting the climate costs to the rest of the world. 

A more recent economic theory highlights the real hypocrisy of corporate globalism.  Known as the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, it admits that comparative advantage increases national wealth and efficiency but shows that the benefits of this wealth flow mainly to holders of capital and land at the expense of labor, especially in developed countries.  Hence, corporate elites have an economic incentive to promote international trade at the expense of wage earners.  They then can exploit national differences in taxation and regulation to further enrich themselves.   

As Theodore Roosevelt pointed out, corporate greed and power can be as much of a threat to freedom as the government. In a world of multinational corporations often subsidized by foreign states, it is an even bigger threat.  National governments are often a more effective check on this power than the imperfect market of international trade. In the late nineteenth century, contemporaries of Ricardo (and Roosevelt) tried to address these problems with globalist methods that, in the end, failed and ended up creating new methods of exploitation instead.  

Next: Socialist globalism and the god of equality  

2024 Election, Nationalist Theory, Politics

The Realignment Continues

Bob Claude |

President Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election caps a distinguished career in public service sadly marred by the circumstances of its end. Conspiracy theories have swirled around the events of the last month since his disastrous debate with former President Trump. However, Biden’s speech to the nation last week on his decision may hold the key to understanding it and the impact on future American politics.

In his speech, the President claimed that he was physically and mentally capable of campaigning in the upcoming election and serving a full four-year term. He justified his withdrawal on the basis that it was “time to pass the torch to a new generation”. However, he could (and should) have reached the same conclusion last year before the primary season. What changed between then and now? 

The Israel-Hamas war is what changed. It laid bare the fissures in the Democratic Party between the traditional liberal leadership and the growing democratic socialist or “progressive” base. Biden had desperately tried to paper over this divide with federal largesse (see this previous post) but belatedly realized that the debate was about much more than relative budgetary priorities. It was part of a slow realignment of American politics. The post-war Democratic Party went from the progressive nationalism of FDR, to Bill Clinton and Biden’s corporate globalism and now may be in the process of moving into an identity politics form of socialist globalism (more on the history and basis of these ideologies later). It remains to be seen whether presumptive nominee Kamala Harris will complete this transformation. Her ideals and ambitions may cause her to adopt an identity politics form of the party’s previous corporate globalism. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is in the process of rediscovering its nationalist roots, though in the form of a sometimes ugly form of ethnic nationalism.  

In the end, Biden concluded that he was too old not so much physically, but ideologically.  His combination of domestic progressivism and a globalist foreign policy was dying and could not be resurrected in today’s world.  He passed the torch out of frustration and sadness, undoubtedly laced with bewilderment and anger. It was an unfortunate end to a long career in American politics.  As Joe Biden rides off into the sunset, the rest of us will have to chart the nation’s course through the shoals of these new ideologies.  

2024 Election, General, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Globalism vs. Nationalism

Bob Claude |

In every wise struggle for human betterment, one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations arise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege.

Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism

Politics has been most simply described as a contest between the “ins” and the “outs”. Those who are “in” eventually succumb to Lord Acton’s proverb that power corrupts. The “outs” then try to hold them accountable, while the “ins” desperately try to justify and preserve the privileges of their power. Monarchies tried to claim a “divine right” to their power and nineteenth century robber barons adopted the theory of social Darwinism to justify the inequality of the Gilded Age.  This quotation from Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism emphasize the importance, indeed the inevitability, of the defeat of such excuses for power and the outdated assumptions that underlie them. 

Globalism has become the latest ideological excuse used by international elites to preserve their privileges in today’s world.  This philosophy believes economic and foreign policy should be made on a global basis without regard to any particular nation’s needs or interests. Politicians thus have a duty to improve the lives of every person on earth equally regardless of national boundaries. Peace will occur when there is worldwide homogeneity in economic, political and cultural conditions and practices.  

In theory, these goals are laudable and its attraction has deep roots in Western civilization and history (see my series on “Nationalist Foreign Policy – A History” under the Foreign Policy tab above). It becomes particularly attractive during waves of economic globalization.  Here is where we need to clearly distinguish globalism from globalization. Globalization is a socioeconomic phenomenon involving a significant increase in trade and cultural knowledge across national borders. When Marco Polo arrived in Chinese Emperor Kublai Khan’s court in 1275 AD, he was part of such a wave of globalization made possible by stable and safe trade routes through Central Asia from Europe to Asia.  The history of this process has been brilliantly told in Prof.  Peter Frankopan’s book” The Silk Roads”, which describes how periods of global trade and cultural contact changed the world from ancient to modern times. However, these waves would prove to be temporary. Globalization could not survive a nation’s love of its own culture and desire for independence.

This latest wave of globalization began in the 1960’s with the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions, continued during the latter part of the Cold War and then took off after it ended. A new international elite whose disproportionate privileges arose from the benefits of this wave then proclaimed a “New World Order” dedicated to spreading their interpretation of democracy and free enterprise throughout the world. This became the basis of modern globalism and achieved a bipartisan consensus in American politics. 

Meanwhile, American elections continued to be fought over the increasingly vacuous divide between big vs. small government.  The debate over the domestic and international costs of the new order were incorporated into this old debate. Four ideologies, each with their own goal or god, emerged: 

  • Corporate globalism and the god of efficiency 
  • Socialist globalism and the god of equality
  • Ethnic nationalism and the gods of blood and soil 
  • Progressive nationalism and the goal of community

In the perfect world, each of these ideologies would be represented by four different political parties.  The real world of our two-party system requires American voters to research each candidate individually and determine which of these ideologies best matches the candidate’s philosophy and positions.  As we approach the 2024 election, the American people need to become familiar with the basic premises underlying each of these new ideologies, the political philosophy behind them and their current leaders.  My next four posts will undertake that task, starting with a survey of the tenets of corporate globalism.