LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES 10.1177/009458202237773Harris / INTRODUCTION Introduction and Globalism in Latin America: Contending Perspectives by Richard L. Harris

The contemporary literature and ideological debates on “globalization” involve a highly contested, complex, and multidimensional discourse on the nature of the present world order and its historical antecedents, underlying causative forces, and future evolution. The concept of globalization itself tends to be used, both uncritically and critically, to focus attention on the dynamic interrelationships between international, regional, national, and local affairs in all the major domains of human concern, including econom- ics, science, technology, , , , communications, trans- portation, education, health, and ecology. The rapidly expanding interna- tional body of literature and the increasingly intense ideological debates on this subject reveal a wide array of different perspectives. They also reveal a great deal of confusion and profound disagreement, particularly with regard to the following concerns (Held et al., 1999: 10–28): the definition and appli- cation of key concepts such as “globalization” and “globalism,” the causation associated with the various contending conceptualizations of globalization, the historical periodization associated with globalization, the effects or impacts of globalization and globalism, their future evolution, and possible alternatives. This collection addresses all of these concerns. It also offers a variety of perspectives and reveals considerable disagreement, even though all the essays belong to the “progressive” wing of the spectrum of perspec- tives and ideological positions found in the burgeoning literature and the many debates on this subject. The concept of “globalization” tends to be used multivalently. It is gener- ally employed as a meta-concept for comprehending and explaining a diverse variety of complex and interrelated processes, structures, forces, agents, and

Richard L. Harris is a coordinating editor of Latin American Perspectives and a professor of at California University, Monterey Bay. He is coeditor of and a contributor to Critical Perspectives on Globalization and in the Developing Countries (2000). The thanks him for his work in organizing this issue.

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 127, Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2002 5-23 DOI: 10.1177/009458202237773 © 2002 Latin American Perspectives

5 6 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES effects. Those who use it in this manner generally try to view these phenom- ena from a historical, multilevel, interdisciplinary and/or holistic perspec- tive. Most theorizing and empirical research on globalization tends to be organized around five key issues or questions (Guillén, 2001: 235): Is global- ization really taking place? Is it producing convergence and integration? Is it undermining the authority of nation-states? Does it characterize the present era of human history, and, if so, how does this era differ from the previous era of modernity? Is globalization producing a global culture, a global economy, a global political system, and so forth? Generally speaking, globalization is regarded as a global process of increasing cross-border flows of products, services, capital, people, informa- tion, and culture (Held et al., 1999: 16). Many observers call attention to the effects of this phenomenon on our sense of time and space. For example, (1990; 1996–1997) that globalization has created a decoupling or “distanciation” of space and time, while Roland Robertson (1992: 8) argues that globalization refers to both “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.” (1996: 92) stresses the informational aspects of globaliza- tion and characterizes the global economy that has emerged as “an economy with the capacity to work as a unit in real time on a planetary scale.” In a simi- lar vein, Martin Albrow (2000: 88) defines globalization as the “diffusion of practices, values and technology that have an influence on people’s lives worldwide.” The Brazilian social scientist Octavio Ianni contends that the complex and multidimensional nature of the phenomena associated with this concept has challenged the theoretical and analytical capabilities of the contemporary social sciences. According to Ianni (1998):

The originality and complexity of globalization, in conjunction with its distinct aspects, challenge the social scientist to mobilize the suggestions and con- quests of diverse sciences. Globalization tends to be seen as a vast process that is not only politico-economic, but also socio-cultural, and that includes demo- graphic, ecological, gender, religious, linguistic and other problems. Even when the investigation privileges a determined sphere of analysis, one is con- stantly challenged to take into account other aspects of , without which an economic, political, sociological, ecological, or any other kind of analysis results in abstractions that lack realism, consistency and verisimilitude [i.e., probability].

Added to this challenge is the fact that since the 1990s globalization has become a “buzzword” that is used frequently in the mass media, in political propaganda, and in intellectual circles. Harris / INTRODUCTION 7

Globalization is the focal point of the increasingly intense ideological and political conflicts that have been ignited by the antiglobalization protests that have taken place in various countries, starting with the protest at the summit meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle at the end of 1999. In intellectual circles, globalization has become “the primary attractor of books, articles, and heated debate” in much the same way “as postmodernism was the most fashionable and debated topic of the 1980s” (Kellner, 2002). Thus, there is a great deal of “hype” about it. The discourse on globalization has been increasingly heated between those who employ the concept as the label for what they consider to be an unfolding process of global economic, political, and cultural integration that is bringing about the progressive integration of humanity and those who use the concept to describe a largely unjust and inequitable process of transnational corporate expansionism that involves the increasing exploitation of a large proportion of humanity and the increasing despoliation of the biosphere of the planet (Harris and Seid, 2000: 1–19).

GLOBALISM

The term “globalism” has also been employed in a multivalent and con- tested manner, generally in close association with the concept of globaliza- tion. It has generally been used to describe the values, ideas, and beliefs (i.e., the ) of those who believe in and seek to promote the global eco- nomic, political, and cultural integration of humanity. More often than not, it is used to describe the ideology of those who seek to advance the global inte- gration of humanity through “free markets” and “free trade” as well as the global application of new , communications, and transportation technologies. At the same time, it has been used to describe the values, ideas, and beliefs of those who hold a holistic founded on the fundamen- tal that “we share one fragile planet the survival of which requires mutual respect and careful treatment of the earth and of all its people” (Ritchie, 1996). This globalism tends to involve a critical conceptualization of contemporary globalization as a process of global integration dominated by large transnational corporations and intergovernmental institutions, struc- tures that are both inherently undemocratic and destructive of the planet’s natural environment. This definition of globalism is revealed in an essay by Mark Ritchie (1996):

While globalism incorporates the idea of the Global Commons to describe the ozone layer, oceans, and genetic diversity, globalization is the acquisition and 8 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

exploitation of these resources by giant corporations beyond the reach of dem- ocratic processes. While globalism implies a respect for diversity, globaliza- tion demands the standardization or homogenization of almost everything and everybody....Trueglobalism is the only weapon we still have for tackling the level of economic, ecological, and social dislocation caused by unbridled glob- alization and the resulting political violence of war and the personal violence related to crime, racism, and xenophobia.

In yet another sense, “globalism” has been used to characterize the view that globalization has created a new historical epoch of “globality” (as opposed to modernity or postmodernity) in which transnational or global agents are undermining the political and economic sovereignty of the nation- state and even laying the foundations for a single global economic, cultural, and political system (Sklair, 2000: 1). William Robinson, for example, con- tends that “globalisation represents a shift from the to a new transnational phase of ” (1998–1999: 111). He argues that “the globalisation of production and the global integration of national and regional economies” are responsible for “a fundamental economic, social, political, and cultural-ideological restructuring in every country and every region” and have “profoundly changed the terrain on which social struggle” is taking place in Latin America. According to Robinson (1996), the disloca- tions and conflicts associated with globalization have given rise to “poly- archy” in most Latin American countries. In this system of domination, transnational capital is hegemonic and the majority of the population “is con- fined to choosing among competing in tightly controlled electoral pro- cesses” (Robinson, 1998–1999: 120). Latin American social scientists such as Octavio Ianni and Aníbal Quijano also hold perspectives that can be described as “globalist,” since they emphasize the growing importance of the transnational or global agents in the globalization process and discuss the challenges that this process and these agents pose to the sovereignty of nation-states, nationalities, peoples, and tribal . For example, Ianni (1998) conceptualizes “globalism” as a new “logic” and a “historical category” that comprehends all “the rela- tions, processes and structures of domination and appropriation that are developing on a worldwide scale”:

Alongside concepts such as “mercantilism,” “,” and “,” as well as “” and “tribalism,” the world is witnessing the emer- gence of “globalism” as a new and embracing historical category and logic. Globalism comprehends the relations, processes, and structures of domination and appropriation that are developing on a worldwide scale. All social , from the individual to the collectivities of peoples, tribes, nations, and nation- alities, as well as transnational corporations, multilateral organizations, politi- Harris / INTRODUCTION 9

cal parties, unions, social movements, currents of public opinion, religious organizations, intellectual activity, and others, are being influenced by the movement and configuration of globalism, and they are in turn influencing it. They are articulations, integrations, tensions, and contradictions that affect each and every organization and institution, the most diverse social realities, to such an extent that globalism appears more or less decisively to determine the manner in which individuals and collectivities move around in the new map of the world.

The Peruvian scholar Aníbal Quijano has identified what he calls a “genuine world imperial block” that is hegemonic on a worldwide basis and consists of the most powerful nation-states (i.e., the Group of 7, plus Russia in a more subordinate role) combined with intergovernmental entities such as NATO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and the “great global corporations” (1996: 9). He believes that these institutions constitute a de facto kind of global . As Quijano sees it, “globalization consists of the concentration of world public authority, strictly speaking the re-privatization of the control of collec- tive authority, that is providing the basis for the deepening and acceleration of the basic tendencies of capitalism” (1996: 13). He considers globalization a “global counter- process” that, despite its false image of being an inevitable and “natural” phenomenon, is in fact the “result of a vast and prolonged conflict for the control of power.” In this conflict, “the forces that represent colonialism and capitalism have been victorious” but are increas- ingly encountering resistance from those who have been conquered and are suffering the consequences of their oppression and exploitation (1996: 14). Quijano argues that “what is in dispute is not the integration of the world” but “the capitalist, counterrevolutionary, and predatory character of the world power that is globalizing it.” He believes that this form of world domination and global integration needs to be replaced with the “democratic integration of the world” (1996: 21):

The democratic integration of the world is one of the most illustrious and per- sistent dreams of our species. What we are dealing with, therefore, is not impeding the integration of the world but, on the contrary, permitting its most complete development, liberating it from the systemic conflict and perverse violence caused by the present tendencies of capitalism so that the diversity of the species ceases to be an argument for the inequality of society and the popu- lation of the planet is integrated into a world of relations between peoples of diverse identities who are social equals and free individuals.

One of the consequences of capitalist globalization and the exercise of imperial domination that he envisions is the erosion of the “the local pro- 10 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES cesses of the nation-state in the periphery,” which he sees as associated with the emergence of fundamentalist tendencies around the world and the “the reproduction of local forms of premodern , the hier- archicalization of society, and the limitation of individualization” (1996: 22).

CONTENDING PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBALIZATION

The spectrum of contending perspectives on globalization has been cate- gorized by the sociologist Leslie Sklair as follows (2000: 1):

It is important at the outset to distinguish between three distinct but often- confused conceptions of globalization. The first is the international or state- centrist conception of globalization where internationalization and globaliza- tion are used interchangeably. This usage signals the fact that the basic units of analysis are still nation-states and the pre-existing even if changing system is one of nation-states. This is the position of most of those who are in globaliza- tion denial. The second is the transnational conception of globalization, where the basic units of analysis are transnational practices, forces and institutions. In this conception, states (or, more accurately, state agents and agencies) are just one among several factors to be taken into account and, in some theories of globalization, no longer the most important. The third is the globalist concep- tion of globalization, in which the state is actually said to be in the process of disappearing.

Sklair’s categorization of the spectrum of contending perspectives on global- ization is similar to that provided by Held et al. (1999: 2), who have identified what they regard as “three broad schools of thought” on globalization: “hyperglobalizers,” “skeptics,” and “transformationalists”:

For the hyperglobalizers, such as Ohmae (1990; 1995), contemporary global- ization defines a new era in which peoples everywhere are increasingly subject to the disciplines of the global marketplace. By contrast the skeptics, such as Hirst and Thompson (1996a; 1996b), argue that globalization is essentially a myth that conceals the reality of an international economy increasingly seg- mented into three major regional blocs in which national remain very powerful. Finally, for the transformationalists, chief among them being Rosenau (1997) and Giddens (1990; 1996–1997), contemporary patterns of globalization are conceived as historically unprecedented such that states and societies across the globe are experiencing a process of profound change as they try to adapt to a more interconnected but highly uncertain world.

The perspective of the “transformationalists” is very similar to the “trans- national” perspective identified by Sklair, and the “skeptics” share “global- Harris / INTRODUCTION 11 ization denial” with advocates of Sklair’s “international” or “state-centered” conception of globalization. However, the views of the “hyperglobalizers” are not the same as those of Sklair’s “globalists,” who take a far more critical view of globalization. In fact, the hyperglobalizers tend to be the uncritical advocates and agents of the global integration of the world under the aegis of transnational corporate capitalism, free markets, and so-called free trade. More often than not, they are adherents of “free-market” neoliberal ideology and regard the global expansion of capitalism as a progressive and democra- tizing force. Ronaldo Munck’s essay in this issue adopts a modified version of Held et al.’s categorization. Munck sees the debate on globalization as involving three contending basic perspectives: (1) the “globalist,” which sees global- ization as “inevitable and irresistible”; (2) the “traditionalist,” which “refuses to accept the novelty of the process and clings to the nation-state”; and (3) the “transformationalist,” which sees “a significant shift at the global level but questions its scope and inevitability.” Munck adopts the “transforma- tionalist” perspective because he believes that it allows us “to recognize nov- elty and the limits of change” and “takes us beyond the binary oppositions of the other two perspectives.” As Held and his colleagues note (1999: 2): “none of the great traditions of social inquiry—liberal, conservative and Marxist—has an agreed perspec- tive on globalization.” For example, they note that “among Marxists global- ization is understood in quite incompatible ways,” since for some it is consid- ered “the extension of monopoly capitalist imperialism” while for others it is regarded as “a radically new form of globalized capitalism” (1999: 2–3). Ianni (1998) believes that “it is possible to distinguish studies [of globaliza- tion] in terms of their theoretical orientation: evolutionist, functionalist, Marxist, Weberian, structuralist, systems theory, etc.” He contends that most studies of globalization tend to be predominantly “meta-theoretical” and either “systemic” or “historical” in terms of the general focus of their analy- sis. Sklair’s (1995) “global systems theory” is a good example of the systemic approach; his model of the global capitalist system is based on the concept of “transnational practices” that originate with nonstate actors and cross state borders. Castells’s (1998) perspective is also essentially systemic. Ianni’s (1998) perspective, in contrast, is a good example of the historical approach, viewing globalization as a “historic rupture,” “a new cycle of history,” and “a social historic process of vast proportions.” In this issue, the perspectives of most of the contributors tend to fall into either the camp of the internationalists and skeptics or the camp of the transnationalists and transformationalists (some of the latter show “globalist tendencies”). There is no good example of the systemic approach; most of the 12 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES essays provide either a historical perspective or an eclectic combination of historical and systemic perspectives. The internationalists and skeptics are represented by James Petras, Ronald H. Chilcote, Carlos M. Vilas, Martha E. Gimenez, and Steve Ellner and the transnationalists and transformationalists by Ronaldo Munck, Jorge Nef, Hilbourne A. Watson, Donald W. and Marjo- rie Woodford Bray, and Richard L. Harris. In some respects, the essays by Watson and the Brays reveal what can be described as a progressive globalist perspective. Watson contends that “states have been shifting key areas of decision-making authority to the world level in ways that reflect the reality of class relations beyond the nation-state.” Moreover, he argues, in response to the globalizing influences of the new information and telecommunications technology of “capitalism in the age of electronics,” this new technology is also being used by anticapitalist forces “to connect local and global struggles to build new transnational anticapital- ist alliances.” The problem, according to Watson, is that contemporary “neoliberal globalization brings citizenship into much closer conformity with market norms.” It also combines capitalism, nationalism, and racism in a manner that “engenders forms of citizenship that undermine the growth of meaningful global .” To achieve “global cosmopolitanism,” Watson argues, “revolutionary workers have an ethical obligation to wage a transnational struggle against all forms of nationalism to overthrow the cultural principle that makes incompatible with decent forms of cosmopolitanism.” He argues forcefully that “there is no way of getting to globalization from below with- out a working-class politics of organization, mobilization, and education that keeps revolutionary class politics and practices in perspective” and resists “all forms of nationalism and cultural .” Here we can see that Watson’s “meaningful global cosmopolitanism” and “globalization from below” are similar to the “globalism” described above by Ritchie and Sklair. In a similar vein, Munck gives importance to and ’s globalist position that any political strategy that tries “to resurrect the nation-state to protect against global capital” is based on misguided nostalgia and must be rejected (2000: 43–44):

We insist on asserting that the construction of is a step forward in order to do away with any nostalgia for the power structures that preceded it and refuse any political strategy that involves returning to that old arrangement, such as trying to resurrect the nation-state to protect against global capital. We claim that Empire is better in the same way that Marx insists that capitalism is better than the forms of society and modes of production that came before it. Marx’s view is grounded on a healthy and lucid disgust for the parochial and rigid hierarchies that preceded capitalist society as well as on recognition that Harris / INTRODUCTION 13

the potential for liberation is increased in the new situation. In the same way today we can see that Empire does away with the cruel regimes of modern power and also increases the potential for liberation.

They contend that the old world order of nation-states is being replaced by an emerging new global capitalist “empire” led by the United States: “What used to be conflict and competition among several imperialist powers has in important respects been replaced by the idea of a single power that overdetermines them all, structures them in a unitary way, and treats them under one common notion of right that is decidedly postcolonial and postimperialist” (2000: 9). Munck also takes what amounts to a globalist position when he asserts that “we need to acknowledge and build on” Alison Brysk’s (2000: 31) proposi- tion that globalization has “encouraged the formation of multiple models of organisation and alliance on a transnational level.” Brysk argues that “activ- ists struggling for have always aspired to global reach, but in the last generation that reach has begun to become a reality” (2000: 29). Citing her analysis of this effort, Munck asserts that “now there is no turning back from the building of global civil society.” The concept of “global civil soci- ety” in this context is a globalist ideal. The Brays employ a number of what can be regarded as globalist concepts, such as “reglobalization,” “globalization from below,” “global civil society,” “globeland” (as in homeland), and “humanistic globalism.” They use these concepts to sketch the outlines of “another world” and an “alternative model of global change” that they hope will replace the current world system. Their perspective is both globalist and transformationalist.

GLOBALIZATION AND IMPERIALISM

James Petras provides a wide-ranging critique of the literature on global- ization and the emergence of the so-called global new economy. He rejects the contention that capital has outgrown the nation-state and that the “new economy” is a consequence of what some have called the “third scientific- technological revolution.” He argues that “almost all of the arguments made on behalf of ‘globalization’and the new economy are suspect” and offers the counterthesis that even though “private capital has indeed expanded into new regions, conquering formerly restricted markets and economic sectors in the former communist and nationalist Third World countries, it continues to retain a clear linkage to nation-states—particularly imperial states—in the world economy.” He also contends that the “revolution” has not formed a new 14 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES economy and that what has been referred to as the new economy is “largely a speculative activity without any solid foundations” that lacks any marketable product or any real potential for profit. Petras’s thesis is that “the conquest of overseas markets is today a product of giant enterprises linked to powerful Euro-American states and can better be seen as part of an empire-building process rather than as anything resem- bling globalization.” In his view, information technology should be seen not as “the dynamic factor accounting for overseas expansion but rather as a source of instability, crises, and declining productivity” and “the expansion of capital should be seen more as a product of speculation, imperial conquest, and illegal activity.” He rejects the myth of the “global” corporation on the ground that the “even the largest multinational corporations are tied to the nation-states in which their control and profits are centralized,” and he argues that the concentration of world in a few U.S.-based multina- tional corporations “is more akin to world empire than to any notion of glob- alization in which private corporations are independent of the nation-state.” Petras’s analysis leads him to conclude that “when the owners and direc- tors of the majority of the corporations and banks controlling international flows of capital are U.S., it is more accurate to speak of imperialism than of ‘globalization.’ ” Moreover, he concludes that “‘globalization’ in these cir- cumstances is an ideology that obfuscates the real structure of power and domination.” Instead, he contends, “mercantilist imperialism, in which the imperial state [the United States] combines protectionism at home, monopo- lies abroad, and free trade within the empire” is the “chosen strategy for maintaining empire and sustaining political support.” He says that the United States and its local allies have employed this strategy with “a terrible cost to Latin America” and “to the dismay of its European competitors.” This perspective contrasts markedly with that of Munck, who argues that “if we look at the different phases of internationalization in Latin America we can detect in the 1990s a critical process of restructuring in relation to the new, more globalized economy.” In this regard, Munck cites Castells, who has argued that “reactions to structural decline in the 1990s...ledtoagrow- ing diversification between Latin American economies as each society looked for a specific form of incorporation into the increasingly intrusive global economy” (Castells, 1996: 117). He sees globalization “as an interde- pendence and intermingling of the local, regional, and global” resulting in what (1997: 133) calls “a greater hybridisation and perforation of social, economic, and political life.” Petras’s perspective also contrasts with the views of Watson and Nef in terms of how much the new information and telecommunications technolo- gies have contributed to the globalization of the world economy and the Harris / INTRODUCTION 15 integration of the Latin American and Caribbean economies into the global market. Petras believes that the so-called computer revolution is simply a new tool for furthering imperial influence. He argues that “rather than a scientific- technological revolution that has led to ‘globalization’ we are witnessing a political, economic, and military expansion that has created a new U.S.- dominated imperial world order.” Watson, in contrast, argues that “corporate capital is using the new technology to integrate global markets for finance, technology, and skilled and professional labor” and that, “with the aid of the new information technology, predatory money has become the dominant form of capital, skeptical of bricks and mortar...andsucking the life from whatever it encounters.” It is for this reason that Watson calls contemporary globalization “capitalism in the age of electronics.” The differences between Petras, Munck, Watson, and Nef on the impor- tance of the new information technologies in the global capitalist economy need to be placed in the larger context of the literature on this subject. In this regard, it is useful to take into account Castells’s (1998) views on this question:

Indeed, for the first time in history the entire planet is capitalist, since even the few remaining command economies are surviving or developing through their linkages to global, capitalist markets....Itisoldbecause it appeals to relent- less competition in the pursuit of profit, and individual satisfaction (deferred or immediate) is its driving engine. But it is fundamentally new because it is tooled by new information and communication technologies that are at the roots of new productivity sources, of new organizational forms, and of the for- mation of a global economy.... In sum, globalization is a new historical reality—not simply the one invented by neo-liberal ideology to convince citizens to surrender to markets, but also the one inscribed in processes of capitalist restructuring, innovation and competition, and enacted through the powerful medium of new informa- tion and communication technologies.

In this new planetary capitalist economy, Castells argues, “a new form of state” is emerging, and “supranational institutions, national states, regional and local governments, and even NGOs” are linked together “in a network of interaction and shared decision making that becomes the prevalent political form of the : the network state.” Thus, in contrast to Petras, Castells holds that the new information and communications technologies have provided a powerful new medium for the globalization of capitalism. Jorge Nef contends that “what makes the present conjuncture special is the intensity and peculiar configuration of its driving forces,” and the first of these driving forces that he identifies is “the long-range effects of technologi- cal permeability on the territoriality of nation-states and upon the very idea of 16 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES sovereignty.” He contends that the dramatic improvements in the scope and speed of communications made possible by new technologies have resulted in a comparable dramatic increase in the movement of information, money, goods, and people around the world and a reduction in “the time and space limits of world politics.” As a result, he argues, “domestic concerns have become so intertwined with ‘external’ factors as to make the distinction between ‘national’ and ‘global’ merely semantic.” Nef rejects the myth of a global society, but he does see “a process of glob- alization” that involves the “increased velocity of elite circulation and com- munications across national boundaries.” He thinks that this process is responsible for “conveying and strengthening the image” or myth that a global society exists. For him globalization is not producing a “global vil- lage”; rather, “what seems to be taking place is the transnationalization of elites going on side by side with an increasing disintegration of national soci- eties and local communities.” Underlying the historical and structural cir- cumstances of the present neoliberal order is a global macroeconomic restructuring resulting from the collapse of the socialist Second World and the “victory” of transnational capitalism, the “disintegration and further marginalization of the Third World,” and “ on a scale unprecedented in human history.” Nef sees “the emergence of a new center and periphery based not on geography but on politics and economics” and an emerging global economic regime that encompasses the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the various regional banks, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Group of 8, and the already established trading blocs (the , the Association of South East Asian Nations [ASEAN], the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], and MERCOSUR). Carlos M. Vilas and Ronald H. Chilcote give less importance to globaliza- tion than Nef, Munck, and Watson, and they share with Petras the view that globalization is really imperialism in disguise. Vilas argues that only inade- quate historical information and faulty analysis could lead anyone to think that globalization involved a “historical rupture” or a new epoch in human civilization. Viewed from a historical perspective, he argues, globalization is merely the present stage of economic imperialism. He does, however, argue that recent technological developments in information processing have favored the development of finance capital and the velocity of international investment flows. For Vilas this is one of the three main factors that have con- tributed to the expanded development of monopoly capitalism in the past few decades, the other two being the great liquidity of capital in the world econ- omy and the resolute interventions of the state in favor of transnational corpo- rations and their local affiliates. Harris / INTRODUCTION 17

Vilas calls our attention to the fact that during the second half of the decade of the 1990s, the value of financial transactions in the global economy was 3 times the value of total world production in goods and nonfinancial ser- vices and almost 30 times the value of total world trade. Thus, globalization is largely based on the financial transactions of transnational firms and specula- tors. He also points out that despite their antistatist rhetoric and statements in favor of globality, the transnational corporations have not hesitated to turn to their home states to help them confront problems they have encountered with the governments of the countries in which they have affiliates. As a result, the market has been converted into a universal mechanism of economic regula- tion, social inequalities at both the international and national levels have been accentuated, and the polarization and fragmentation of most societies have increased. Vilas argues that evidence of these effects can be seen in the ele- vated rates of unemployment, impoverishment, and inequality in the majority of both developed and underdeveloped countries, North and South. Ronald H. Chilcote’s essay provides a critical perspective on globaliza- tion that has much in common with the perspectives of Vilas and Petras. He is concerned about the uncritical and widespread usage of the term “globaliza- tion” and argues for “a return to imperialism as the concept and theoretical framework for understanding the impact of global capitalism on the contem- porary world.” He points out that “globalization” tends to be used uncritically to characterize the global capitalist economy in positive terms, the unstated assumption being that globalization is bringing about the orderly and harmo- nious integration of humanity. Chilcote rejects the idea that globalization has brought about a new era of postcapitalism, postmodernism, postimperialism, and postsocialism. Instead, he accepts Samir Amin’s (2000: 127) contention that globalization “is an ideological discourse used to legitimize the strategies of imperialist capital.” He points out how “the diffusionist assumptions of capitalist devel- opment manifested since II have become incorporated into the presumed new theory of globalization seen as integrating all nations into a harmonious and stable world.” He provides a very useful comparison of the concepts of imperialism, dependency, and globalization and finds imperial- ism to be the more useful theoretical perspective in that it focuses on “the underlying economic system that dominates the world today.” He argues that “globalization can only be understood as a manifestation of imperialism and the devastating capitalist order.” Martha E. Gimenez provides a concise critique of the increasing tendency “to see everything through the lens of globalization.” She argues against the use of “globalization,” since this term tends to be used to talk about the pres- ent world order without discussing the capitalist material basis of the various 18 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES phenomena that are lumped under the label. Thus, she regards “globaliza- tion” as a “global fetish.” She considers the mainstream globalization dis- course “simply the reified, fetishized way of talking about the effects of capi- talist development without having to talk about capitalism itself.” She argues that the use of this term contributes to “the naturalization of capitalism” in that it is employed as “a neutral term, like ‘markets’or ‘society,’ ” used to des- ignate “something impervious to human agency” and “taken for granted as a force of nature.” “Globalization,” she says, is “an inherently conservative way of thinking about current social processes.” Gimenez argues that we need to acknowledge that “the so-called new era of globalization is simply the unfolding of capitalism’s potentials.” She rec- ommends that we abandon the term “globalization” and recognize that “capi- talism has always been a world historical phenomenon, unfolding in the dia- lectical relations among nation-states.” If we acknowledge this fundamental fact, she argues, it should be possible to “develop a more sober assessment of its nature” and identify the possibilities for developing “effective political resistance” to its effects.

GLOBALIZATION AND THE AMERICAS

Steve Ellner argues that the best way to evaluate the validity of the differ- ent theories about globalization is to apply them to concrete developments and specific countries. A number of the essays in this issue in fact adopt this approach. Ellner examines what he calls the “radical” thesis on globalization by applying it to the case of Venezuela under the regime of President Hugo Chávez. The radical thesis, according to Ellner, “posits that transnational capital and structures are inexorably undermining the state and national sov- ereignty” and that “any government that defies multinational structures and spurns neoliberal policies will eventually back down or else be removed from power.” Since Chávez is “the first elected Latin American head of state since Alan García [in Peru] to defy the hegemonic powers of the ‘new world order,’ ” his regime is “putting the radical thesis on globalization to the test.” Ellner concludes that Chávez’s avoidance of political destabilization has, at least so far, refuted “the notion that any deviation from the globalization- imposed model will inexorably lead to great economic hardship for the peo- ple and force those in power to choose between recanting and being removed from office.” Mônica Dias Martins provides a case study of globalization and develop- ment in Brazil in which she critically examines the neoliberal model that countries such as Brazil have followed to develop and incorporate their Harris / INTRODUCTION 19 economies into the global capitalist system. She notes that, while the litera- ture on development and globalization generally does not mention imperial- ism, a Marxist perspective on imperialism is needed to explain the historical underdevelopment of countries such as Brazil and the fact that the develop- ment of regions such as the Brazilian Northeast has benefited only a privi- leged elite at the expense of the impoverished majority of the population. Martins rejects the myths of the “self-made man” and the modern entrepre- neur that are part of the neoliberal ideology of globalization, arguing that they are used to justify the inequalities and hide the class relations that are the product of capitalist development. She also points out that the regional devel- opment of the Northeast in accordance with the neoliberal model of develop- ment and globalization has resulted in the squandering of the region’s human and natural resources. She concludes that the current model for the subordi- nated integration of the region into the international capitalist system will not solve the complex problems of the Northeast or protect its ecosystems. Bernadete Beserra’s essay focuses on Brazilian Senator Marina Silva’s political and practice. It provides an uplifting case study of how the words and deeds of a single individual can inspire people across national borders to cooperate in protecting the natural resources and indigenous peo- ples of important regions of the planet from the ravages of capitalist global- ization. Silva has risen from humble origins to become both a prominent leader in the struggle to protect the natural resources and indigenous inhabi- tants of the Amazon region and Brazil’s first woman senator. Beserra recounts how Silva has taken the lead, since the death of Chico Mendes, in organizing the efforts to protect this important region of the planet from the dangers posed by its integration into the global capitalist economy. Silva has led the campaign to provide both regulated access to the region’s rich biodiversity and a sustainable form of remuneration to the native peoples of the region for their knowledge and their resources, which have contributed to the health and well-being of people all over the world. Beserra makes an impassioned appeal for following Silva’s inspiring example—using women’s “trick” of cooperation to save the planet’s biodiversity and create a more egalitarian and democratic present and future. This issue also includes a document produced by Puerto Rico’s Ejército Popular Boricua—Los Macheteros (the Boricua People’s Army—the Machete-Cutters). This document presents this revolutionary movement’s perspective on both neoliberalism and globalization and its analysis of Puerto Rico in the present conjuncture. The Macheteros view their struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico as both the continuation of the historical strug- gle for national independence of the Puerto Rican people against colonialism and part of the international struggle of the majority of humanity against the 20 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES exploitative and destructive global capitalist system. They accept the premise of Fidel Castro (Castro, 2000) that globalization is an inexorable and basi- cally positive process but that the globalization project of the capitalists is profoundly destructive of both the planet’s human and natural resources. They regard that project as the globalization of imperialism and see their struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico as being closely tied to the struggle for what they call “humanist globalization.” They contend that this humanist form of globalization involves the globalization of equal justice, material equality, and human rights for all humanity. They argue that all the underdeveloped nations and poor peoples of the world must have equal par- ticipation in the globalization process and that the independence of the Puerto Rican people must be achieved if they are not to disappear as a nation.

RESISTANCE AND ALTERNATIVES TO CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION

Although most of the essays in this issue address the themes of resistance and alternatives to capitalist globalization, several of them focus primarily on this subject. The Brays’ essay deals with the construction of an alternative model of global change to oppose the neoliberal model of corporate domina- tion that predominates throughout the world today. In place of the contempo- rary world order they want to see a new one that provides for considerable local control, including autonomy for indigenous people, engages in “new- world planning” that lifts living conditions in the South to acceptable levels, and is governed by world and national governmental institutions that effec- tively represent the interests of ordinary people around the world and increase their material well-being. Thus, the Brays call for a new world sys- tem in which “meaningful citizenship will be exercised at three levels: local, national, and international” and neoliberal globalization will be overcome by humanistic globalism. Michael Löwy’s essay provides a manifesto of sorts for the creation of an international front to resist capitalist globalization. In reaction to the negative effects of capitalist globalization, Löwy sees the seeds of a new international- ism emerging throughout the world. He argues that the following three con- stituent elements are contributing to the construction of this international resistance: (1) the revival of the anticapitalist and anti-imperialist tradition of proletarian internationalism, rid of the authoritarian stigma of the past (the Stalinist inheritance of blind submission to a state or an ideological camp), (2) the humanist, libertarian, ecological, feminist, and democratic aspirations of the new social movements, and (3) the new networks that have emerged to Harris / INTRODUCTION 21 fight neoliberal globalization, which mobilize not only critical researchers but young people who want to do battle with the main institutions of the inter- national trade and financial system. He sees the protests and popular mobili- zations of the past few years as evidence of the joining of these forces. It is in this convergence that Löwy foresees the development of a universalist and liberating internationalism in the twenty-first century. David Barkin’s essay calls our attention to the fact that “millions of people around the world are defying conventional thinking” and instead of “toeing the line of free trade and regional economic integration...are...impetu- ously setting out on a different path to social and cultural diversity and envi- ronmental .” Barkin argues that increasing numbers of people and communities are “constructing their own alternatives” to neoliberal capital- ism and capitalist globalization. His essay focuses on the “unexpected groundswell of that has produced a remarkable proliferation of alternative strategies” at the community level in Mexico. He offers three illustrative cases and points to “some of the pitfalls that make it particularly important for the communities themselves to be in control” of these alterna- tive strategies instead of “well-meaning benefactors.” The last essay in this issue, my own contribution, focuses on resistance and alternatives to globalization in Latin America and the Caribbean. It examines the extent to which the neoliberal stabilization and structural reforms undertaken by most of the governments in the region to integrate their economies into the global capitalist economy have met with a wide range of popular resistance. It describes the most recent and perhaps most significant expression of international popular resistance to neoliberalism and capitalist globalization, namely, the formation and first two annual meet- ings in Porto Alegre, Brazil, of the World Social Forum. It goes on to discuss the urgent need to mobilize broad-based popular support for one or more politically viable alternatives to the prevailing neoliberal project, laying out some of the prerequisites for a viable alternative strategy. It concludes by arguing that in order to displace the neoliberal and transnational elites from power, the parties of the left and center-left and other organized progressive political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean need to overcome their differences, join together in a broad political front, and mobilize broad-based popular support for an alternative project that is both politically and economi- cally viable and ecologically sustainable. To meet the needs and interests of the vast majority of the people, such a project must foster inward-oriented and ecologically sustainable social, economic, and political development, and to do so it must also incorporate some of the basic elements of and democratic . 22 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

The effects of globalization on Latin America and the Caribbean and the struggle to replace the capitalist globalization of the region with a viable alternative model of development are themes that Latin American Perspec- tives will revisit in future issues. It is hoped that this special issue will stimu- late others to contribute to the ongoing vitally important and contentious dis- course on these themes, which concern not only the future of the region but also the future of humanity and the survival of the planet’s biosphere.

REFERENCES

Albrow, Martin 2000 The Golden Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer- sity Press. Amin, Samir 1997 “Placing globalisation.” Theory, Culture, and Society 14 (2): 123–137. 2000 “Capitalism, imperialism, and globalization,” pp. 157–168 in Ronald Chilcote (ed.), The Political Economy of Imperialism: Critical Appraisals. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. Brysk, Alison 2000 “Globalization: the double-edged sword.” NACLA Report on the Americas 34 (July/ August): 29–31. Castells, Manuel 1996 The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. 1998 “Information technology, globalization, and social development.” Paper prepared for the UNRISD Conference on Information Technologies and Social Development, Geneva, June 22–24. Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http://www.unrisd.org/infotech/conferen/ castelp1.htm Castro, Fidel 2000 “On globalisation.” Speech presented at the opening session of the South Summit in Havana on April 12, 2000. Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http://archive.8m.net/castro.htm Giddens, Anthony 1990 The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity. 1996–1997 “Excerpts from keynote address at UNRISD conference on globalization and citizenship,” UNRISD News 15. Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http://www.unrisd.org/engindex/ publ/news/15eng/giddens.htm Guillén, Mauro 2001 “Is globalization civilizing, destructive, or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 235–260. Retrieved June 7, 2002, http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/guillen/docs/GlobalizARS.pdf Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri 2000 Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harris, Richard and Melinda Seid 2000 Critical Perspectives on Globalization and Neoliberalism in the Developing Coun- tries. Leiden: Brill. Harris / INTRODUCTION 23

Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton 1999 Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson 1996a “Globalization: ten frequently asked questions and some surprising answers.” Sound- ings 4 (Autumn): 47–66. 1996b Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Gov- ernance. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Ianni, Octavio 1998 “Las ciencias sociales en la época de la globalización.” Revista de Ciencias Sociales 7/ 8 (Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina). Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http:// www.argiropolis.com.ar/documentos/investigacion/publicaciones/cs/7-8/1a.htm Kellner, Douglas 2002 “Theorizing globalization,” pp. 73–108 in Alexandra Suess (ed.), Globalisierung: Ein wissenschaftlicher Diskurs? Mainz: Passagen Verlag. Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http:// www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/theoryglob.htm Ohmae, Kenichi 1990 The Borderless World. London: Collins. 1996 The End of the Nation-State. New York: Free Press. Quijano, Aníbal 1996 “Colonialidad del poder, globalización y democracia.” Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http://www.urbared.ungs.edu.ar/download/documentos/aquijano2.doc Ritchie, Mark 1996 “Globalization vs. globalism: giving internationalism a bad name.” Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav/telearn/global/ilo/globe/kirsh.htm Robertson, Roland 1992 Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. Robinson, William 1996 Promoting : Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998–1999 “Latin America and global capitalism.” Race and Class 40 (2/3): 111–131. Rosenau, James 1997 Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sklair, Leslie 1995 Sociology of the Global System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000 “The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalization.” Retrieved on June 7, 2002, http://www.globaldimensions.net/articles/sklair/LSklair.html