Hello world, goodbye nation. I've had a great ride, but ever since religious fundamentalists started killing themselves in the name of Jihad, the nation seems so played.
After all, people consider themselves global citizens now. They say things like, "I'd really like to see China." And they're convinced they will someday. People travel the world on company cash. They strike groundbreaking business deals - negotiations that speak louder than diplomats at the United Nations.
Unfortunately, if you look in an atlas, you will not encounter the world as it operates today. Borders and boundaries suggest separation, but who plays by their rules anyway? As our global economy continues to grow, a new world order is sweeping every corner of the earth. So why hasn't anyone caught on?
As the saying says: As goes General Motors, so goes America. In other words, a national industry like GM reflected and protected the U.S. economy. Does this still hold true?
The first thing that comes to mind is that Chevy Silverado commercial. The one where John Mellencamp reassures Americans: "This is our country." Don't get me wrong, Mellencamp has every right to empower Americans. To be honest, a little patriotism couldn't hurt us.
Chevrolet, on the other hand, is totally out of its league. Parent company GM boasts manufacturing operations in 33 countries, which entails foreign employees, foreign management and foreign factories. This transnational corporation has investments that spill over U.S. borders and derail any chance of a planned national economy. Sorry socialists; as goes General Motors, so goes foreign portfolio investment.
In a world of global commerce and corporate conglomeration, we face a challenging question: Who does GM pledge their allegiance to? Allegedly America, and for good reason, because long ago, corporations were granted protection under the Bill of Rights as a "natural person."
For example, if an individual somehow harms a company, the corporation has a legal right to sue for damages. What a bummer, right? I am much less resourceful than corporations and significantly less efficient.
Moreover, transnational corporations are unique in that they aren't confined to U.S. borders like us folk on the ground. Instead, these mega-people are mega-resourceful and backed by the "Bill of Rights." It seems unfair. I'm just not sure why.
Information technology can take a lot of credit for that one. Important people and products are connecting in ways never thought possible ten years ago.
And new people. In The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman explains how more and more accountants in America simply outsource tax returns to India. They compress tax information into raw data files and send it off. It's that easy and that strange.
New forms of global cooperation accommodate new modes of global competition. Workers on opposite sides of the world compete for similar work, transnational corporations step into foreign communities to create jobs and at what cost?
The benefits are clear and we've heard them all before: specialization, efficiency, low-prices, etc. But what do we sacrifice for global commerce?
As humans bound by gravity, it is much easier to identify with the earth you can see. If you ask me, even nationalism seems like a bit of a stretch. So how can we consider ourselves global citizens?
Without certain precautions, globalization may draw people away from the rules and regimes of their local communities. Values, cultures and traditions that lack "market-value" could become outmoded sources of inefficiency.
Where will we find religion in the global marketplace? In aisle zero right next to housewives - that's where you'll find them. Prayer may nourish the soul, but it won't feed your children unless you can make manna rain from the sky.
In some fields and some nations, globalization may create a race to the bottom and at the expense of people's livelihood. I'm no advocate for communism, but Marx's arguments against capital have become increasingly apparent in our modern world.
When industry was confined to the nation-state, Americans could rest easy. Employers and executives shared our sense of community. They might have attended our Sunday services or participated in local sports leagues.
In the global economy, management is increasingly isolated from the laborers who work for their corporations. Furthermore, the working-class is larger than ever. Marx would call this "proletarianization." The creation of a global marketplace will enfranchise millions, maybe billions, of workers.
Friedman suggests the growth of information technology and the global cooperation it engenders will set the stage for "multiple identity disorder." Who am I? Am I a Minnesotan? Am I college student? Am I an American? Am I a waiter? Am I a revolutionary?
That last one goes without saying because I pee in the shower. The underclass will have all its glory. You wait and see.
Be the first to comment on this article!
Log in to be able to post comments.