#12
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 120
June 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
GLOBALISATION AND RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WEST AND THIRD COUNTRIES
Analyst's remarks
Yevgeny VERLIN

Globalisation, the relations between the West and third countries, Russia's prospects in the global context are some of the most widely discussed topics in the mass media today, especially after the September 11 events. For specialists who study these issues, everything is not as clear as for journalists and on-duty analysts. Vladimir INOZEMTSEV, Doctor of Sciences (Economics) and director of the Centre for Post-Industrial Society Studies was interviewed by NG to share his opinion on the above processes.

Question: You have been developing for over ten years now the theory of post-economic society in your books and articles. With each new work this concept becomes ever more profound and specified but at the same time your optimism related to the possibility of a conflict-free settlement of contradictions accumulating in contemporary world fades away. Why?

Answer: The era of the industrial society in the first half of the 20th century, when economic goals and materialistic motivation dominated Western society, has been succeeded by the post-industrial era. It has brought with it the quick growth of well-being and the decrease of the role of material motivation. Today individuals are more seeking to achieve the inner goals of their development rather than to increase their material wealth.

But such a significant social revolution cannot but generate new inter-class contradictions. It destroys the former unity of society, making people's goals incomparable. It undermines the unity of civilisation and sharply increases the gap between the rich and the poor. All this is fraught with extremely grave consequences.

Question: But what threat can the replacement of economic goals by the individual's desire for self-realisation pose in this respect?

Answer: The answer is very simple. In the course of centuries any society had been united not so much by the consent of people about things, which they like. "A worker seeks to get as much as possible while a capitalist wants to give as less as possible. This unique formula devised by Adam Smith is a guarantee of the stability of societies based on the resultant of opposite but actually similar forces. Similar relations also developed globally: European countries were interested in the riches of colonies (and then in the riches of independent countries of the South) and spared no efforts for their annexation and subsequently for a long political bargaining with them.

But as soon as unheard-of riches begin to be concentrated in the hands of those who produce knowledge and frequently do not even aspire for mere enrichment while the Western world discovers that it is more independent from the need for material and mineral resources than ever before, the sustainable balance becomes upset. The workers' demands on the increase of their pay no longer have former grounds since the creation of a new software and its copying do not require personnel that is needed for the creation and production of, say, a new car model.

Likewise, the value of mineral resources that are actually the only wealth of Third World countries is largely levelled off. Meanwhile, the personnel of the traditional sectors continues to constitute a majority even in developed countries while Third World residents a larger part of the world population. They cannot agree with their redundancy. This generates a new conflict.

Question: Is it possible then to refer you to anti- globalists whose influence grows? What positive features do you see in this movement?

Answer: Modern anti-globalists believe that what is generally understood as globalisation is dangerous and they are right. However, they are right only about that. Their opinion is that globalisation is not only dangerous but also harmful, which is erroneous because an objective process cannot be either bad or good.

Anti-globalists proceed from the fact that today there are in the world a lot of pressing problems: inequality, poverty, senseless violence. However, to my mind, they illegitimately confuse inequality and injustice. Standing for the introduction of special taxes on developed countries, the proceeds from which should be committed to the fund for the development of the Third World, and seeking to impose restrictions on the economic progress of developed countries, they are not aware of the fact that its modern successes have been generated by the efforts of the West and its citizens rather than by the exploitation of the Third World.

No one today compels representatives of peripheral countries to buy software at high prices and sell their natural resources at low prices. Simply, such is the price of access to the world economic infrastructure created by the West and this price has to be paid since the stay outside this infrastructure (this applies to Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and North Korea) turns out to be much more expensive. That is why, you need to pay attention to the fact that the anti-globalist movement emerges in developed countries rather than in the Third World where investment and humanitarian aid are perceived almost like an unexpected pleasant thing.

Anti-globalists' programmes are not only utopian but reactionary since any demand of equality not based on justice is reactionary.

Question: It is possible to find enough examples of the successful development of formerly backward countries in the last several decades. The countries of South-East Asia, China testify to the fact that the position of peripheral societies is not so hopeless. What are the prospects of catch-up development in the 21st century, to your mind?

Answer: The examples you speak about are the examples of accelerated development.

The Asian economies have, indeed, made a considerable breakthrough. Based on cheap labour force, imported capital and technologies, and also western demand (which is, incidentally, not so vitally acute) for their products. The rate of economic growth never exceeded from 1973 to 1997 the rate of the growth of direct investments in any of these countries. As before, the overwhelming number of Asian goods is produced on the basis of US and European technologies. In this case, what we see is an example of quite reasonable and positive cooperation of the centre and the periphery rather than an attempt by Asian countries to catch up with and outpace the USA and Europe.

Today it is possible to catch up with Western countries only when the latter wish so, and this wish may appear only if catch-up states do not only seek but are also really ready to become loyal members of the western community.

Question: What is the place of Russia in the emerging world of the 21st century, in your opinion?

Answer: To my mind, in the 21st century Russia must acquire what it was deprived of in the 20th century: the status of a normal civilised country that does not sacrifice its people for the sake of absurd experiments and does not subject its international reputation to situational projects of the ruling elite.

That is why Russia has to cover a long way to join the community of developed nations with time. However, this is possible, if some conditions are met. This involves refusal from confrontation with the Western world. This means the maximum attraction of foreign capital and technologies to the sectors oriented to the production of finished consumer goods sold on the domestic market, the emphasis on rasing the living standards and the educational level of the population, the maximum development of the domestic market and the refusal from state support for inefficient industries. Finally, it is of decisive nature to build a civil society and individualistic consciousness which implies the expansion of scientific, cultural and educational exchange with Western countries.

BACK TO THE TOP    #212 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION