globalization the key to communism?

this proposition is heavy on the theory, light on the details.  be warned.

one of the most enlightening and rewarding academic decisions i’ve ever made was to focus my attention on sociology and exploring all the alternatives it provides to the status quo system in place in modern western civilizations.  i say this with particular respect to economics, which i find to be the most displeasing areas of study among universities.  the reason for this is that economics seems to hold itself to the status of science when it is clearly not.  even worse is the manner in which universities seem to treat economics as a science.  the field of economics implies a study of the ways in which a society might organize and structure the means of production and distribution.  what it actually is is an in-depth study of one economic ideology and how it organizes and structures our society.  the economics major at rutgers heavily promotes micro and macro economics and further specification built upon those principles, principles which are products of economic liberalism stemming from adam smith’s theories.  this is somewhat like working towards a physics degree and only learning about einstein’s theory of relativity without any concern for quantum mechanics or attempting a political science major and learning only about american democracy with no regard for monarchies or dictatorships.  the reason for this is clear; as rutgers is an american institution and thus prepares students for american life, which is dominated by capitalist economic principle.  the university is preparing students with the knowledge they need to properly integrate into the existing social system.  it makes little sense to teach marxist economics or tribal economics as we don’t live in a world of those principles.  i recognize and understand this necessity, however, it intensely frustrates me when undergraduates study economics assuming it to be somehow the only legitimate system, or worse yet, regarding the teachings as somehow scientifically reliable.  anyone who has taken a sociology or history course on adam smith knows that all his theories are predicated on fundamental assumptions of human nature which have not ever been scientifically verified.  furthermore, his theories are also philosophically juvenile in their assumptions of moral right and good, focusing entirely on the material with no regard for the human condition.

one might argue that western capitalism is clearly the only viable economic system as it is the system which has succeeded.  well, this argument is like saying that the eagles are objectively better  than the giants because they knocked them out in the play-offs.  it confuses existence as an argument for legitimacy.  simply because the giants happened to lose this one game does not effectively prove them to be an objectively worse team.  worse yet, it does not account for any circumstantial variables which might influence outcomes.  simply because the giants are not going to the super bowl this year does not prove that they could not ever attend the super bowl.  yet, many seem to believe that because american capitalism held out against communism, it is somehow objectively a superior ideology and that because communism failed once, it can never succeed.  to better understand this argument, one must understand the premises of communism.

it is the belief of many that communism failed because it was unable to effect a true manifestation of its tenants.  the belief is that the failed form of communism was not truly communism.  it is a well documented characteristic of marxian communism that the revolution be of global proportion and that for communism to truly work, it require the unanimous revolution of all nations.  i believe this is because marxism does not argue that capitalism is an inefficient model, but rather an unsustainable one from a humanistic liberal perspective.  capitalism addresses society as a machine, disregarding the humanity of its members.  this does not mean it is productively weak, but rather immoral and unsustainable.  in a material competition, there is a good chance that capitalism will indeed defeat any other economic model.  however, that is not to say that were marxism to have succeeded in converting the world it would have failed by some intrinsic defect.  perhaps it simply was not time for such an economic model to arrive.  the insulated nation states of the time were still too insular to foster a global revolution.  capitalist influence was too strong and its material allure too magnetic.  however, there is a growing trend which may hint at a future where a marxist revolution is more plausible.  american economic might during the cold war was far too influential to overcome.  economic assistance plans like the marshall plan kept key nations from the marxist persuasion.  furthermore, the strength of the american middle class mitigated the vital role that class inequality must play in a communist revolution.  so what has changed?

the american economy is weak.  the middle class is shrinking.  class inequality is greater now than ever before in the 20th century.  most importantly, american capitalism has recently implemented a campaign of globalization, joining the world’s economies into one megaeconomy without borders.  this i believe to be a potential death knell of modern capitalism.  perhaps not in my lifetime, but eventually, if globalization continues to unite the world’s economies, it will lay out a foundation for global revolution like the world has never before been afforded.  with the unification of the world’s economies, a communist revolution would no longer face the problem of staggered levels of development among nations.  the exploitation of laborers would no longer be a social condition specific to single nations, but an epidemic held in common among all globalized nations which are exploited by the wealthy nations of the world.  in essence, globalization transforms the world into one enormous model of the smaller, individual economics we see in developed nations today.  instead of poor laborers in ghettos working for rich capitalists, we have the poor geographic regions of latin america, africa, southeast asia, all laboring now for the benefit of the wealthy nations of western civilization.  the exploitation of laborers becomes truly international and the vision of a global proletarian revolution becomes shockingly plausible.  what america is finally coming to understand is that free market capitalism knows no national borders.  trade is the ultimate bond between nations.  as corporations move to exploit cheaper and cheaper labor in foreign countries, american laborers find themselves increasingly short of work.  what needs to happen is the reformation of the american working class to an american service class.  if america wishes to continue its trend of a borderless global economy, then it must transform its citizens to become the capitalist owners of that economy.  american workers cannot compete with the labor that developing nations can provide.  they are becoming an obsolete class, yet little is being done to transition those families and individuals to the service jobs which foreign nations cannot provide.  american employees of ad agencies, media corporations, financial institutions, and software developers need not worry about their foreign counterparts in mexico, indonesia, or nigeria because there is no competition.  if america is to succeed in the globalized world it is creating, it must not only shift its labor exploitation to international territories, but also promote and develop its own service industry to manage this new global market.  this means more americans need specialized skills and talents only developed nations can provide in order to exploit the cheap labor that developing nations are so eager to provide.  otherwise, the poor laborers of america will continue to suffer and a tremendous social problem will erupt.  to avoid massive civil unrest in america now, it must embark on a campaign which might ultimately lead to global communism later.

consider this, however unlikely and far-fetched it seems:

the world’s largest communist nation, the people’s republic of china, holds the largest share of us treasury securities of any foreign nation, a whopping $585 billion.  if it were to sell this debt, it would undercut the dollar and cause an almost immediate recession of epic proportion, throwing the entire global economy into severe turmoil.  epic recession means epic unemployment and poverty which is the breeding ground of communist sentiment.  the world’s largest communist nation has the ability to plunge the world into a period of almost guaranteed communist reform.