"For now it suffices to underscore globalization’s glaring contradictions: wide income and wealth inequalities that have turned democracies into oligarchies; new forms of surveillance; inter-state competition and rivalries that have encouraged conflicts and wars; and waves of migration by the poor that have generated right-wing backlashes. In the wake of such contradictions, globalization has come under attack by the pro-capitalist Right (‘America First’, Brexit, ‘the people vs the elites’, the new trade wars, anti-immigration) as well as by the anti-capitalist Left, who were the first critics." (Moghadam, 698)

QUOTE:

JCR 1 - Tanisha Dosani

Steger and James argue that globalization is a direct outcome of the natural unfolding of human history, suggesting that globalization isn’t just the substantial increase in capital/commodity flows, but, also, an increased flow of “ideas, ideologies, and imaginaries,” which have, in turn, mobilized various social movements (examples they use include cyberactivism, such as WikiLeaks or the Anonymous collective).

They go on to propose four globalization periods across world history:
1. The ‘customary’ period, the Great Divergence
2. The ‘traditional’ period, the Great Universalizing
3. The modern period of the Great Convergence
4. The postmodern of the Great Unsettling

Nonetheless, as Moghadam identifies, this delineation of stages is detached from the progression of capitalism, what she describes as the "tributary, slave-holding, feudal, and capitalist modes of production.” Hence, rather than regarding capitalism as a stage situated within the inherent progression of globalization (Like Steger + James), Moghadam views globalization is the latest phase of capitalism.

as

Hence why I chose this quote: when you begin to identify these (invisible) structures of oppression hidden in the emergence of globalization, the more “visible” the invisible becomes.

→ for example, migrant workers moving from the periphery to the core (bringing the global into the local and vice versa)

Contradictions of globalization become clear

→

→

→

EXAMPLE of the "invisible":

Link to the article in case it doesn't show up below: https://www.ualberta.ca/en/folio/2024/04/a-divided-and-hidden-life.html

Workers from Mexico arrive in Canada as migrants to work on Canadian farms. Though they generate an enormous amount of wealth for this country (7% of Canada's GDP, equivalent to 149.2 billion (!!) dollars), they live in limbo.

Migrant workers are only offered a temporary stay on a work visa; nonetheless, many workers stay in Canada for decades, with many staying 25+ years — five times the number of years you are required to stay to obtain citizenship. Nevertheless, due to the precarious nature of their legal status in Canada as (racialized) migrant workers, they are offered none of the legal protections of citizens -- BY DESIGN!! Many workers in the article mention that, without help from employers to access English classes or driving lessons (things that would help migrant workers become autonomous individuals within Canada), they become "modern slaves."

→

Moreover, I chose this quote because I witness daily the irony of right-wing populist sentiments -- views which are often, though not always, held by White, male individuals — an important colonial dynamic to keep in mind.

One common piece of rhetoric I have witnessed become especially prominent is the notion that (racialized) im/migrant workers are stealing jobs from the "good," "real Canadians." Those who argue this idea are also often the same people who directly benefit from the labour and oppression of the workers/people they seek to eliminate.

They benefit → Economically, through cheap labour, which produces massive economic gains AND → Politically (i.e., using (im)migrants as political scapegoats, yet denying them any legal rights/protections)

This argument and presentation of history imply that the emergence of globalization has represented a ‘net positive' for all

→

QUESTION

as the latest phase of capitalism

within

Through the brief exploration of this topic above, it becomes increasingly clear that globalization must be the latest phase of capitalism, as at the inception of the very concept of "globalization" (which occured post WW2), this was realized through, as Moghadam highlights, the "growth of credit money, finance, and banking, along with the development of large corporations, cartels and trust[s]." (698)

Hence, it follows that globalization exists as a model -- through institutions such as, for instance, the World Bank or IMF-- to reduce barriers to trade/production/labour.

However, could internationalism be the corollary to globalization? Though there is no one definition (at least, one that I can find at the moment), this would represent the dissemination of ideas, of social movements, in a way that disrupts the superstructure (by basing it on a different mode of production) -- what could this look like on a large-scale basis?

→

Relates to what Saskia Sessen (as well as Moghadam) says about the partiality of globalization → for example, as highlighted in the example below and elaborated on to the left, Canadian's greatly benefit from the labour of migrant workers, but the same cannot be said vice versa. Hence, globalization's effects aren't total -- WHO benefits is largely determined by their relation to the core

Closer to the core --> more benefits
Further from the core, closer to the periphery --> lose benefits, become an extractable commodity

→

I googled the difference between 'globalization' and 'internationalism' to find what could (theoretically) distinguish between both concepts, and stumbled across a very interesting answer posted on a Reddit page called r/Communism 101.

→

Link to thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/6boi2m/what_is_the_difference_between_globalism_and/

↓

↓

Then, for instance, internationalism in this case looks like displaying solidarity for similar causes across different locations globally -- but rather than these ideas travelling within the structure of globalization (which operates within a capitalist mode of production) internationalism would transcend that -- I suppose my question would be HOW?

→