Now any government or public administration without taking into account globalization is doomed to failure. Why? Because global politics not only exists, but is already being successfully carried out, which means that anyone who turns a blind eye to it, either out of stupidity or ignorance, inevitably becomes an object i.e. the subject of its influence.

What is globalization?

What is globalization in a simplified way is a process in which individual and isolated elements of civilization on the planet are increasingly united and integrated into a common complex connected by heterogeneous interactions and relationships. First of all, this concerns production forces, i.e. economy, but is true for all aspects of people’s lives, incl. for example cultural layer.

Now globalization has become so firmly established in our lives that, for example, for the younger generation it is as obvious as breathing - common networks, electronic money, travel without borders, friends from different countries, common “network” values, etc. and so on.

Yes, globalization is an absolutely objective process, i.e. a process that is conditioned by the natural development of civilization, which means there is no way to stop it.

Hence the first, simplest and most obvious conclusion - anti-globalists are fools and doomed.

Managing globalization

But at the same time. that globalization is objective, this process can be managed in different ways. And different people at different times came to this understanding, after which they began to try to manage this process to their advantage, and in attempts at such management even a certain competition emerged.

Why is this so important? Because management of the most general process affects all more specific processes. And since globalization is one of the most general processes on the planet, the one who controls it controls not only people, but also nations and states and everything that happens in them.

As a particular example of such globalization, one can cite the emergence of transnational corporations that buy up not only governments in batches, but also international organizations such as the WHO or the UN in order to push through those “decisions” that are beneficial to them, in fact determining the line along which all of humanity will develop.

As an example of one of the ideas of globalization, we can cite the example of the idea of ​​transhumanism, which suggests ways of how we see the future of humanity or man - will we develop man as he is or will we replace the weak links in man with robotic analogues.

Who will manage and what are the options?

It is now clear that whoever controls globalization controls virtually everything. It is clear that in order to carry out such management it is necessary to at least

Know about its existence

Know how to do it

Have the resources for such management

The items are listed in descending order of their importance. Naturally, whoever first understands that the process of globalization can be controlled and learns how to do it will skim off all the cream.

But all management has a purpose. You can manage for your own benefit, or for mutual benefit, or for development, or for degradation..

Key moment of globalization

In other words, how the general process will go, which will determine all the private processes of social life on the planet, depends on who, how and why controls globalization.

Anti-globalists

Now let's go back to the beginning. At the moment, all the processes of globalization of life in many of its aspects are obvious, so everyone who opposes this process a) is objectively mistaken b) will not receive support from the majority of the population in a global perspective

Based on this, all “right-wing” movements that are now trying to revive the former state on “traditional” national grounds in the wake of the collapse of states are doomed.

Having come to power and following only the idea of ​​separate national states, they will very soon prove their inconsistency and thus will only work into the hands of the globalists.

What are the alternatives?

An alternative to purely right-wing movements could be a new concept of globalization that does not use the destruction of nation states and the erosion and destruction of national identities, but will preserve them without interfering with the process of globalization as a whole.

An example of such development is an interethnic interstate bloc

Global politics for everyone

I think based on the above, it is obvious that such concepts as globalization, global politics and management based on it should be introduced into the widest circulation. Because forewarned is forearmed. Anyone who does not know that he is being controlled is inevitably subject to manipulation.

Anyone who knows and understands these processes can build their life in such a way as to take into account what is happening to achieve their goals.

Global problems and the inevitability of globalization of humanity

Initially, the term “globalization” from the 19th century was associated with a market civilization of exchange and international trade; during the 20th century, the definition of this concept expanded significantly. Now it is associated to a greater extent with the consequences of the global onset of market civilization, with global problems that threaten the survival in the biosphere of humanity as a species. Global are problems that require united efforts and joint actions of all states and peoples to be solved. As N.N. Moiseev noted, the most urgent task of humanity is to develop a “strategy of man” consistent with the “strategy of nature.” The strategy of humanity acts as an organic ideal of its goal-setting activity on a planetary scale. This strategy cannot be implemented by a few selected peoples; it is a matter for the human community as a whole. Thus, by the concept of “globalization” we understand the inevitable process of integration of humanity to solve global problems of its survival. The analysis of these problems is a fairly large scientific problem, which has a complex ideological structure, logically connected with the entire history of the cognitive and practical activities of mankind. Systematization of global problems with the identification of “problems-causes” and “problems-consequences” (based on the results of studies of global problems conducted by Russian and foreign scientists) shows the following

1. Global problems of human survival come down to three complex groups: a global environmental problem, a global civilizational problem of humanity, a global anthropological problem. 2. Global problems of human survival are closely interconnected. The complex of civilizational problems of humanity is the cause of the global environmental problem, and the cause of civilizational problems is a complex of anthropological problems. 3. The global “anthropological crisis” defines a system of negative trends modern society, leading to pathological and other negative phenomena in human nature and significantly reducing his personal potential. The idea of ​​sustainable development arose in response to global problems of humanity. In our opinion, the most logical concept of sustainable development is presented in the works of scientists from the International University of Nature, Society and Man “Dubna”. According to this concept, there are two worldviews that determine the choice of direction for solving global problems of humanity: 1) The Earth is a closed system, and life is possible only on its territory. With such a worldview, the idea of ​​a “limit of development” and the temptation of genocide of the “surplus population” arises (the idea of ​​a “golden billion” worthy of further residence on Earth); 2) The Earth is an open system, and all life on it is a cosmic phenomenon.

Here, not only the idea of ​​preserving the development of humanity on Earth arises, but also the idea of ​​​​continuing the development of humanity in space. The first ideological approach is based on a mechanical picture of the world, “the theory of exchange as a credo of a way of life” (in the words of A. S. Panarin) and is actively implemented in the neoliberal project of globalization of humanity. The theorists of the “golden billion” consider the Earth to be a closed system, and vital resources are limited, therefore they are ready to destroy unnecessary people. The combination of instrumental rationalism with the presence of global goals turns the neoliberal project into a “machine of intense predation.” The second approach to understanding the world is based on the modern scientific picture of the world - universal evolutionism and the legacy of Russian cosmism. Russian cosmism as a whole in philosophy, science and art carried out the global reflection necessary for humanity for the genesis of universal evolutionism. Russian cosmists, realizing that it is impossible to stop the growth of humanity, open the way for it into the Universe. They consider the Earth to be a predominantly open system, the “cradle of humanity” and believe that the time has come for humanity to explore space and its resources.

The restructuring of all the foundations of science, its departure from the positions of mechanism to organicism, was carried out throughout the 20th century, and by its end, universal evolutionism was finally formed as a general scientific picture of the world. No one can deny the contribution of Russian cosmists and their followers - Russian scientists - to the latest version of the scientific picture of the world. A change in the scale of the chronotope among cosmists leads them to a new understanding of humanity as part of the cosmic mind, and from here, from the whole, new goals of existence and a new cosmic morality arise.

In the works of Russian cosmists, humanity already exists as a single new organism, a new whole with new properties. The driving force behind the historical development of society are people who are able to generate and implement ideas that provide growth in opportunities not only for the current time, but also in the future. Thus, the reproduction and formation of people capable of generating and implementing ideas for the continuous development of society is the main idea and rule of the concept of sustainable development of humanity. Challenges facing Russia As A. S. Panarin notes: “Monetarism is more than one of the economic trends. Today it is perhaps the most aggressive doctrine, requiring a revision of the very foundations of human culture. The question is not about exchange as such, the question is about making everything in the world alienable - and on a global scale.”

Monetary globalization is committing an environmental crime against life on Earth, since it has proven incapable of protecting and accumulating environmental benefits. This means the absence of such a specific characteristic of civilization as an intensive path of development. Solving global problems requires an intensive breakthrough, high-quality human development and transformation of environmental management practices, but neoliberalism is tied to extensive economic practice. Now that we are seeing the actual consequences of unlimited market liberalization, it is important to recognize the secret of the “charm” of market theory.

It lies in the right to civil passivity: market automatism is supposedly so miraculously designed that without any strain of political and moral will, with complete social passivity of citizens and the state, it will in itself give the best economic results. The emphasis is on the exchange theory, the people turn into an unorganized conglomerate of irresponsible money changers who bring everything to the global market. The exchange theory also allows for the total transformation of the country's population into a community of competing money changers. Modern apologists for profitability do not spell out all the ensuing consequences, but directly point to the irreconcilable conflict between two types of rationality: short-term economic and long-term social - from different scientific pictures of the world.

Today, the results of the Cold War are presented as a victory of liberalism over communism. However, at that time everyone knew that in the course of it two large projects collided, each of which came out of the European Enlightenment, associated with the creation of a single large space and a large historical time that was uniform in its direction. It was not about the difference in goals, but about different understandings of how to achieve them; the same goals were proclaimed: freedom, equality, welfare, education, etc. The USSR was built according to a project that combined the teachings of More and Campanella, Owen and Saint-Simon, Marx and Lassalle. All of them were united by the idea of ​​a rationally organized society that had overcome the elements of nature and history.

Today Russia has become a target against which the efforts of short sellers are directed. Her reputation is being tarnished in every possible way. Without presenting Russia as the source of world evil and disorder, it is impossible to secure the fruits of victory in the new Cold War. When “liberal” theorists talk about totalitarianism, they focus on the traditions of the Russian community, on the quirks of the incorrigible national mentality, in a word, on the peculiarities of the nature of Russian people. Scientific analysis is being replaced by a kind of racist anthropology, the purpose of which is to expose the incorrigible heredity that allegedly puts the Russian people in a conflictual relationship with democratic modernity. Without the complete weakening and fragmentation of such a historical substance as the people, it is impossible to achieve the victory of the neoliberal globalization project.

The global mental conflict that humanity faced when trying to resolve civilizational and ecological problems, is that not only topo-typologically, but also chrono-historically different mentalities coexist at the same time. And Russia can synthesize a unified mentality of sustainable development of humanity and present to humanity its formulation of universal human values ​​as an invariant of the value development of the world, which will be shared by all peoples. These universal human values ​​apply to humanity as a whole in its relationship to nature, the cosmos, itself, and the processes of reproduction.

Harmonization of freedom of society and freedom of the individual, when a person, preserving his individuality, rising in his consciousness to the problems of universal human existence, uses his freedom, his creativity and his intellect - for the sake of the survival of humanity. All existing logics regarding the future development of humanity, in our opinion, come down to the metalogic of sustainable development of humanity in the 21st century, or to the management paradigm of human development. The management paradigm becomes both a condition and an imperative for the survival of humanity. In his speech at the APEC Business and Globalization summit in 2000, V. V. Putin noted: “Our compatriot V. I. Vernadsky, at the beginning of the 20th century, created the doctrine of the space uniting humanity - the noosphere. It combines the interests of countries and peoples, nature and society, scientific knowledge and public policy. It is on the foundation of this teaching that the concept of sustainable development is actually built today.”

V. A. Shamakhov

I would like to speculate on the subject of globalization so that we can imagine current and impending processes. If we consider phenomena in nature, we will see that it tries to be optimal, as if not to waste extra energy. It seems to me appropriate to give an example with animals here. They, as a rule, walk along paths, especially in winter, when snow makes movement difficult and the animal chooses the optimal mode of energy consumption. Something similar can be seen in the process of economic globalization.

It is clear that living and production are energy-intensive in the northern territories, because... A large amount of energy is needed to heat housing, industrial buildings, etc. This leads to a very unpleasant conclusion for Russia. Given the presence of a global elite and its production embodiment in TNCs (transnational corporations) in Russia, as such, there is no place in the global division of labor other than as a resource appendage. If we follow this logic, if our elite fits into the world elite, it will have no interest in preserving Russia, with such an excess population and excess cities that need to be fed, clothed, given work, and most importantly, spend the planet’s non-renewable resources on us. If you noticed, the process of reduction in production and population in Russia is still underway.
It turns out that if we oppose the process of globalization, then we seem to be opposing the laws of nature? And we are told that we need to live with it in accordance with nature. But we are people, not animals who live according to the laws of nature, and naturally we will be against this approach. To avoid this resistance, the world elite is trying to dehumanize us, lower us to the animal level, through instincts, through the destruction of culture and education, etc. Ultimately, no matter how right they are, they are harmonious with the laws of nature, so it turns out?
That's why we are people, not beasts. We like our land and climate, we love our winters with their peculiar beauty and frosts. The question just comes down to the energy component. I keep thinking, why is alternative energy being slowed down? Most likely, just in order to first decide to seize world power through globalization. Personally, I see no other explanation for the imposition of world globalization.
By the way, the states went against this trend and now Trump is taking quite successful steps, in my opinion, against global financial power, and in this it would be nice for us to cooperate with them. Why is no one talking about this area of ​​cooperation, I don’t quite understand? If we only put forward the version that our authorities have already partially fit into the global frame, then the puzzles will fit together. Why don't they strive for financial independence? This topic was voiced long ago by the same NOD of Fedorov, all this still remains an unresolved issue for me. What steps the president will take, not in words, but in deeds, I think, then this position will be fully revealed.

What does it mean?

Globalization is the increasing integration of economies and societies around the world.

This is an inevitable phenomenon in the history of mankind, which consists in the fact that the world, as a result of the exchange of goods and products, information, knowledge and cultural values, becomes more interconnected. However, in recent decades, the pace of this global integration has become much faster and more impressive, thanks to unprecedented advances in areas such as technology, communications, science, transportation and industry.

Although globalization accelerates human development and is a consequence of it, it is a difficult process to adapt to and creates serious problems and difficulties. This rapid pace of change can become alarming and most countries struggle to control or manage it.

Why does this concern me?

Globalization has been the source of some of the most heated debates of the last decade.

When criticizing the consequences of globalization, people most often refer to economic integration. Economic integration occurs when countries relax restrictions such as import tariffs and open their economies to investment and trade with the rest of the world. Critics of globalization point out that inequality in the current global trading system negatively affects developing countries to the detriment of developed countries.

Proponents of globalization believe that the implementation of policies open economy in countries such as Vietnam, India, China and Uganda, has significantly reduced poverty.

In response, critics claim that the process has led to the exploitation of people in developing countries, serious destabilization and has achieved little or no benefit.

In order for all countries to benefit from globalization, the international community must continue to work to eliminate imbalances in international trade (reducing farm subsidies and lowering trade barriers) that benefit developed countries and create a fairer system.

Some countries have benefited from globalization:

• China. The reforms have led to an unprecedented reduction in poverty levels. Between 1978 and 1989, the number of rural poor fell from 250 million to 34 million.
• India. Over the past 20 years, the poverty rate has halved.
• Vietnam. The results of surveys of the poorest families indicate that in the 90s of the twentieth century their living conditions 98% of members of such families improved. The government surveyed families at the start of the reform process and returned to the same families six years later and found that there had been a significant reduction in poverty levels. People had more food to eat and their children attended high school. One of the many factors that influenced the success of reforms in Vietnam was trade liberalization. Over ten years, the poverty level in the country has been halved. Economic integration has increased prices for poor farmers' products such as rice, fish, and cashew nuts, as well as increased employment in footwear and clothing factories, which pay much better than other jobs in Vietnam.

Globalization has not helped other countries:

• Many African countries have not benefited from globalization. Their exports are still limited to a limited list of basic raw materials.
• Some experts attribute the lag of these countries to the ineffectiveness of their policies, underdeveloped infrastructure, weak institutions and corrupt authorities.
• Other experts believe that some countries cannot join the global growth process due to unfavorable geographical location and climatic conditions. Thus, landlocked countries may have difficulty competing in global markets for manufactured goods and services.

Over the past few years, there have been protests in Europe and the United States about the consequences of globalization. However, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, there is very strong support for various aspects of integration, especially trade and direct investment, in many developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, 75% of households believe that investment by multinational corporations is a positive thing.

Just the facts

History of globalization

The most recent wave of globalization, which emerged in 1980, was driven by a combination of advances in transportation and communication technologies, as well as the actions of large developing countries that tried to attract foreign investment by opening their economies to international trade.

In fact it was third wave this phenomenon, which began in 1870.

First wave globalization lasted from 1870 until the outbreak of the First World War. The incentive in this case was advances in transport and the reduction of trade barriers. As world trade boomed, the share of exports in global income doubled to 8%.

This caused a massive migration of people in search of better work. About 10% of the world's population has moved to other countries. 60 million people moved from Europe to North America and other parts of the New World. The same thing happened in populous China and India, from which people traveled to less populous countries such as Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam.

The end of the First World War ushered in an era of protectionism. Trade barriers such as tariffs have appeared in trade. World the economic growth stopped, and the share of exports in world income fell to the level of 1870.

After World War II there was second wave globalization, which lasted from about 1950 to 1980. The second wave mainly manifested itself in the integration of developed countries such as those in Europe, North America and Japan, which restored trade relations through multilateral trade liberalization.
During this period, there was an upsurge in the economic development of member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which was one of the reasons for the trade boom. However, developing countries mostly found themselves outside of this integration wave, because they could only trade basic raw materials.

What is the international community doing?

World Bank spokesman David Dollar compares globalization to a high-speed train that countries can only get on if they “build a platform.” In fact, building a platform means creating a framework that ensures the successful functioning of a country. It includes property rights, the rule of law, basic education and health care, reliable infrastructure (such as ports, roads and customs), etc.

International organizations such as the World Bank, bilateral aid agencies and non-governmental organizations are working with developing countries to create this framework so that they can prepare for global integration.

If governments do not create such a framework and provide basic services, the poor will not be able to reap the benefits and will remain on the margins of development.
It is also important that the government runs the country well. If a country has a corrupt and incompetent government, outside agencies are unlikely to make a difference in people's lives.

What can I do?

• Expand your knowledge of the world and current events.
• Become a part of the volunteer movement. Visit the UN Volunteer or Idealist websites for information on volunteer opportunities around the world to promote sustainable development.

If you live in a developed country:

• Contact your country's national volunteer service
• Or visit the sites

A powerful process of restructuring the entire world order is underway and the need for a new approach to understanding the common destiny of humanity is growing. The process of globalization as it appears in its current phase is accompanied by the development of new socio-political, economic and ideological trends. Over the past decades, the world community has been experiencing a series of rapid and dramatic changes. Individual national markets, despite barriers and restrictions, cultural and political differences, are beginning to form a single global market. This process is called globalization.

The term “globalization” was first introduced by the American economist T. Levitta. It denoted the phenomenon of market merging, which began to actively manifest itself in the early 80s of the 20th century. Later, the Japanese Kenichi Omi, a consultant at Harvard Business School, wrote in his book “A World Without Borders” (1990): “... economic mechanism in some countries has become meaningless, the roles of powerful actors on the world stage are played by global firms” (20, p. 31).

The tastes and preferences of consumers in different countries have begun to transform under the influence of a number of global norms. The industry began to focus not only on the European, American or Japanese markets. Its object was the global market. Suffice it to recall the global strategies of Coca-Cola, Sony, McDonald's and many other companies, whose products are considered by consumers in many countries as their own, familiar.

The expansion of the market mechanism across the planet began after the 2nd World War. The removal of barriers to the free flow of goods, services and capital was accompanied by the rapid development of information, communication and transmission technologies, as a new peak of the scientific and technological revolution.

The expansion of market mechanisms to almost all countries of the world has led to a qualitative change in the role of the state in the national economy and the emergence of new super-national entities that determine the development of individual economies, as well as the entire world economy. It was discovered that globalization is an unbridled and very difficult process, although sometimes it is expressed in very specific facts, for example, in the lifting of customs restrictions on a number of goods. Its motives are the constant search for comparative advantage in trade, minimizing costs in the production of goods and services through the transfer of means of production to countries with cheaper labor, or increasing labor intensity through new combinations of division of labor, when entire countries appear as separate departments of a transnational corporation.

Globalization is not a linear process, but a wave process with many different stages. It extends from the era of geographical discovery to the capitalist colonization of the world, from the crisis of the 70s and 80s to the collapse of socialism. More precisely, this is the second, after the first failed, attempt at globalization. The first took place in 1850–1910. In that golden age, passports and visas were not required, one could invest in any country and import from almost anywhere. It all ended with wars, revolutions, anarchy, militarism, Great Depression, collapses in financial markets and the collapse of global trade. True, the first stage of globalization took place, as a rule, against the background of the colonization of a number of countries. But it seems that the current stage of globalization will not avoid the repetition of some consequences. Although the current collapse of the currency parity system and the cumulative debt collapses of the 80s and 90s. of our century, in terms of its negative consequences, it is incomparably milder than at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Globalization, as a complex process, has many forms and aspects, the most important of which are the relationships between modern multicorporations and nation states.

Many entities promote and implement this process - international organizations IMF, World Bank, WTO, regional organizations, transnational corporations, investment funds, insurance companies, big cities and certain financially powerful individuals (Soros, Gates). All these entities are interested in eliminating government barriers and implementing the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clearly noticeable weakening of the role state institutions leads to the rise of international or global institutions, taking on the functions of protecting and protecting both internal and external order for each country, and acting as a single consolidated mechanism. More concrete, community-based institutions are being replaced by more abstract, nationally distant global norms supported by privately run courts or private armies.

The most involved in this process, of course, is the United States, standing behind these numerous corporations and non-governmental organizations. But various ethnic and national groups, dispersedly settled in different states, also have a certain interest in globalization, ignoring the national and cultural specifics of these groups and thus provoking their negative reaction to their own state.

And, of course, to a certain extent, the catalyst for the ideas of globalization is the state itself, which betrayed the interests of its people and became a puppet in the hands of private corporate forces.

Globalization can be viewed in 4 important aspects: as economic, political, communication and cultural-moral globalization. Here we will briefly touch on the economic aspect, and the rest will be discussed in the relevant articles.

Globalization began primarily as an economic process, as a desire to find new markets and cheap labor. Today, transnational corporations have created extensive organizational networks that span the entire world, coordinating the production and sale of products. In this economic globalization, two planes can be distinguished: flows of goods and products traded by different countries, and financial flows. More significant and larger in scope today is the globalization of investment markets.

The latest data show that trade globalization is ahead of financial globalization: capital flows and investments in the global economy are occurring at a faster pace. Financial markets turned out to be more open and less susceptible to customs barriers. For example, if the flow of goods and services across state borders has increased over the past decade by 2.5 times and amounted to more than $1,200 billion, then financial investments from developed Western countries into the economies of developing countries have increased 10 times and amounted to more than $250 billion ( 19). Moreover, a significant share of these investments consists of the capital of private citizens of developed countries, whose legislation encourages such investment. Through electronic means of capital transfer, investors are integrated into the global economic system.

These data demonstrate the real concern of large masses of the Western population, including many pensioners who have invested their money in pension funds, in the reliability and stability of the economic situation in developing countries and in guarantees of the return of their capital. There is no need to talk about the largest banks, the volume of their investments and their concerns.

Thus, one of the negative aspects of globalization is the spread of the American economic model to other regions. The specificity of this model is the priority of finance over production and social distribution. In fact, private US banks (and there are no others there) exercise complete control over all the population’s money and the movement of any capital. Every dollar earned in the US is privately controlled. banking agency, which has the right to demand proof of the legality of its receipt. It should be noted that since all the money in the USA passes through banks, which naturally keep part of it, the banks themselves are interested in high salaries of the population, of which sometimes up to 30-40% is deducted for taxes. The privatization of public finances actually led to the privatization of the state itself by a group of private financiers. This, by the way, stems from many of the problems of US foreign policy.

This model of globalization, carried out by US-oriented corporations, suppresses the nationally oriented will of the population of non-Western countries, subjecting their culture, traditions and values ​​to powerful criticism and ridicule in terms of tribalism and self-centeredness. At the same time, a ban is placed on the implementation of truly democratic policies within these countries, as not meeting the interests of these companies.

What is the potential result of the promotion of global competition in all areas of life? The consequences of the promotion of neoliberal policies can be described using a fractal as self-similarity. This property means that each detail of the fractal outline reproduces the same structure or proportion on an enlarged or reduced scale.

If we consider the conditions of production distributed throughout the world as desirable from the point of view of neoliberal globalization, we will find in them an analogy with the concept of a fractal. Each scale of socially productive aggregation - firm, city, county, country, macro-region or global economic community - faces strong pressure to become an isolated productive node competitive with the whole world. Individual versus individual, firm versus firm, city versus city, country versus country, one economic zone versus another. In this sense, each productive node appears as a self-similar copy of all the others.

Each of these levels of aggregation, each productive node, must cope with limited resources and obey the rules of competitive existence in relation to the rest of the world. Will these limited resources brought about by market competition or government budgets, the end result is the same: the immediate sphere of action of each productive node must eliminate any other action than survival against the whole world, no other strategies of action except capitulation or inclusion in the competitive game.

Through competition, technologies and products spread, workers are hired, and it also leads to the emergence of modern forms of slavery within the international division of labor. Entire countries or peoples become branches or departments of corporations, as was once the case with India in relation to the East India Company.

Together with the economic and competitive pressures described above, each node within this fractal geometry of the neoliberal world economy must accept as its fundamental explanation and as the decisive criterion for the organization of work in this area an economic, rather than a social, rationale. Everywhere and in all social issues neoliberal economic theory should become a bible, and for every node. Magnifying a node does not eliminate self-similarity. The more pervasive commercialization becomes, the more deeply this economic rationale penetrates into the thinking of citizens and, at the instigation of governments, into all areas of society that were relatively protected not so long ago. The social function of the economic rationale for social life is, of course, exclusively pragmatic and is implemented according to the principle of a self-fulfilling prediction: “if everyone believes that this is so, then it will be so.”

But why should each given node of social space (individual, firm, cities, countries, regional communities, etc.) survive in opposing competition with the rest of the world? Why shouldn’t countries, cities and peoples prefer to overcome the difficulties of social development in solidarity? The propagated economic rationale not only does not answer such questions, but also does not allow them to be asked, not even allowing for going beyond the boundaries of neoliberal economic practice. The existence of isolated nodes, face to face with the hostile rest of the world, is presented to the public, including the scientific community, as an immutable reality given by nature. Ultimately, this reality corresponds to the logic of intensive exploitation, which robs workers of even the joy of live communication with each other. And the economic and logical justification for the insurmountability of this condition leads to reconciliation with it and immersion in the hopelessness of the absence of an alternative reality. Moreover, such justification is instilled in the population quite officially, in state seal and in public education.

This is the role of governments and institutional policies of non-Western countries today, which fit perfectly into the context of the imposed fractal geometry. It is clear that it is not they who can find the source or motivation for a new perception of the role of the economy. But by abandoning the traditional role of supporting their population and co-opting social projects, politicians and governments are at great risk. An increasing number of people understand the harmfulness of such a process of expansion of a primitive doctrine, which turns the entire population of the country into sellers of foreign goods.

Member of the European Commission in Brussels, L. Britain, writes that in order to meet the needs of globalization, non-Western countries must undergo greater liberalization than before, but this process must also be accompanied by the creation of more effective discipline, which as a consequence will lead to “diminished national sovereignty.” " (5). In other words, the agents of globalization themselves recognize that in the context of the world economy, as the fractal geometry of capital, the decline of national sovereignty corresponds not only to the strengthening of market power. The power of global institutions such as the WTO or the European Community is also increasing, capable of resolving commercial policy issues without even the necessary consultations with the European Parliament or national governments or other state institutions. These global institutions, although not elected by the population, have the power to overrule national or regional legal regulations if they prove to be barriers to liberalization, although these regional regulations may have important local environmental, labor or social considerations. But since these issues vitally concern the local population, ignoring these issues even during the decline of the state is fraught with danger. It is these circumstances that have caused the growth of nationally oriented movements throughout the world. Globalizers understand this very well, which is why the issue of discipline and strengthening police measures within the state becomes relevant. One might think that it was the first wave of globalizers who established the Soviet discipline of the giant factory.

But, continues Britain, now in relation to the population of European countries: “the more the process of globalization progresses, the more European integration develops and transnational institutions grow and merge, the more important it is that the electorate does not feel that they are deceived or deprived of the opportunity to influence decision-making . This requires a finer division of labor between different centers of power and political institutions. Decisions must be made at the most appropriate level” (5, p.26). In other words, not only is the influence of government institutions diminished, but the government's ability to negotiate with social movements and various groups interests within a particular country.

Of course, people may feel deceived, deprived of their rights, and of course the problem of legitimizing power arises. But here the neoliberal concept is presented to them as a natural law, reconciling them with the acceptance of life as organized around a continuous struggle for survival even with one's own government and with the reproduction of a deficit of solidarity communication. This presupposes the acceptance of Social Darwinism as an essential condition of human life.

The fractal nature of this process is that the priority of capital and its sovereignty is taken as a primary given at any level of social aggregation and any level of political administration, as well as the priority of competition and the importance of capital accumulation. According to this algorithm, the role of national parliaments is no longer in resolving social conflicts and mitigating public relations. Rather, in parliament, in regional or city governments, politicians are required to transform these territories into productive nodes of the global factory. In this sense, the main goal of administrators is to make a country, city, region or neighborhood more competitive than others and therefore more able to attract capital. The transfer of powers to lower levels of the hierarchy does not mean the transfer of part of the power to the regions, but has the goal of making people more actively involved in managing the global capitalist machine at a more local level, but on the same formulated principles.

Two important elements deserve mention in relation to state strategies for resolving and redressing the deviant behavior of the “socially excluded”. On the one hand, increasing criminalization over the past two decades has led in countries such as the UK and the US to the emergence of private prisons operating as businesses and fully integrated into the networks of the global economy. Secondly, a more recent fact is the connection and support of non-governmental organizations by such institutions as the WTO, the World Bank, and governments. This relationship is similar to that adopted by the state in relation to the trade union movement in the 30s and which opened the way for the Keynesian strategy for resolving social conflict. The hidden goals of this support may be to create the ground for mitigating the inevitable expansion of social conflict, and, consequently, to involve many non-state organizations in the policy of mediation between the demands of the people inhabiting the territories and the competitive needs of local nodes.

But neoliberal strategies of global integration do not occur in a vacuum, and social forces opposing them are multiplying. During the neoliberal 1980s and 1990s, these struggles often challenged the forces of globalization and forced them into retreat. The main weapon for increasing market dependence and involving countries in the global economy was debt. Moreover, as everyone knows, it was fraudulently imposed, thanks to government corruption. Although many countries often rebelled and demanded debt cancellation or reduction. But since then, the nature of social movements and the struggle against neoliberalism has evolved. Although initially these battles were reactive in nature and mainly defended the rights and privileges that were threatened by neoliberal policies. But over time, a new opposition alliance began to form, putting forward new political and organizational slogans. This led to the formulation of new demands, new rights and new platforms. An observer endowed with a historical perspective will see in the advancement of the neoliberal perspective over the course of 20 years not just the defeat of opposition forces, but an underlying process of recomposition of radical demands and the maturation of new social subjects; a process that forced each movement not only to seek alliances with others, but also to accept the struggles of others as its own, without having to subject the demands of the other movement to the test of ideological purity.

Through this process of social recomposition against neoliberal hegemony, a new philosophy of liberation emerges. It is still difficult to definitively define the key elements of this new platform, but it is clear that the movements are moving away from the previous one-sided radical formulations. For example, this is the transformation of ideas that accompanied the process of interaction between these movements. It was realized that poverty reduction does not justify blind destruction of the environment for the sake of this goal - the merit of environmental movements in understanding this; environmental protection does not justify job cuts and unemployment among thousands of workers - a merit of the labor movement; protecting jobs does not justify the production of weapons, instruments of torture and even more prisons - a merit of the human rights movement; protecting prosperity and well-being does not justify killing indigenous peoples and destroying their culture - credit to the indigenous movement, etc. Similar transformations of slogans occurred in all other movements. The wide variety of sometimes contradictory social movements is leading to the formation of new alliances and helping to define new political platforms.

Thus, the globalization of trade and production has expanded the sphere of international contacts and brought together the needs and aspirations of a large number of people around the world, which has manifested itself in various kinds of movements opposing the processes of neoliberalization. These movements have not only grown into organized and effective international networks of resistance to neoliberal strategies, but have also initiated a social process of recomposing civil society around the world on priorities that are incompatible with the values ​​of global capital. The transformation of the social structure of societies leads to new divisions both between countries and within countries. And the same prosperous Italy, from where people come to Prague to protest against the process of globalization, indicates that a new Internet generation has emerged, a new context of social contradictions, a new stratification of society and new problems from which prosperous foreign countries are beginning to suffer. Societies today are divided into groups of countries that are actively promoting this process and into groups of countries that will never become independent.

At the same time, as capital's globalization strategies increase the interdependence of different peoples around the world and thereby increase their vulnerability, movements transform their practices and overcome the distinction between the national and the international, making the former less visible, less important. Since more and more state functions are transferred to transstate institutions, the struggle against these institutions (WTO, World Bank, IMF, etc.) obscures the differences between the national and the international.

Examples of this new wave of international organizations opposing neoliberalism can be seen in their struggle against the WTO and the North American trade agreement - NAFTA. The movement's anti-NAFTA campaign found so many disparate forces in agreement that it forced the official US government labor bureaucracy to distance itself for the first time in history from supporting US foreign policy that pursued neoliberal ideas.

Another international organization that combines broader internationalism and transcends platform differences by incorporating them into the “for humanity and against neoliberalism” movement is created by the Zapatistas, an uprising of the indigenous people of Mexico. The Zapatista uprising in Mexico was sparked by the government's attempt to put up for sale land traditionally inhabited by the local population, and there was a similar movement in Brazil to re-appropriate land. One can also point out many other similar movements against neoliberalism, radially diverging from the central theme for all of them - the struggle against the WTO, protests against the sessions of which take place wherever they are organized in the world.

The methods of organizing such movements are very important. In the last two decades, the emphasis has been on horizontal rather than vertical organizational relationships, the need for direct participation rather than delegation of authority, and the search for consensus rather than acceptance by majority rule. These practices go deep into the minds of participants in these processes, teaching them how to support various social movements. In this sense, for example, the question of power is completely redefined by the Zapatistas. Instead of seeking to “take power,” participants in the struggle focus on “exercising power” through a process of mutual recognition of movements as different fragments of a whole.

In other words, by re-posing the question of direct democracy, the search for consensus, and horizontal organization, this struggle reformulates the question of human freedom.

Thus, we see that the privatization of world politics, which is carried out by neoliberalism, i.e. pursuing the interests of private financially powerful groups through state policies cannot but alert all other peoples of the planet. But our analysis must take into account another side, not antagonistic to the first, but catalyzing it. Let's take a closer look at the logic of the capital accumulation process. Our task, in this case, is not a detailed analysis banking, but an attempt to demonstrate new methodological approaches to the analysis of social phenomena.

Literature

1. Amin, Samir (1996). What's modern about the modern world-system? , Volume 3, N. 2
2. De Angelis M. (1999).Globalisation, work and class. USA.
3. Bell, Peter F. and Harry Cleaver. 1982. Marx’s Crisis Theory as a Theory of Class Struggle. In, Research in Political Economy. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
4. Brecher, Jeremy & Tim Costello. 1994. Global village or global pillage: economic reconstruction from the bottom up. Boston: South End Press.
5. Brittan, Leon. 1997. “Globalisation” vs Sovereignty? The European Response. Speech, Rede Lecture, Cambridge University, 20th February 1997. (In http://europa.eu.int/)
6. Caffentzis, George. 1998. From Capitalist Crisis to Proletarian Slavery. An Introduction to Class Struggle in the U.S. 1973–1998 Jamaica Plain: Midnight Notes.
7. Chossudovsky, Michel. 1997. The Globalization of Poverty. London:
   Zed Book.
8. Davis, Mike. 1992. City of Quartz. New York: Vintage Books.
9. De Angelis Massimo. 1995. Beyond the Technological and the Social Paradigms: A Political Reading of Abstract Labor as the Substance of Value. In Capital and Class 57, Autumn.
10. Guy de Jonquieres. 1998. Network Guerrillas. In Financial Times, 30 April 1998.
11. Helleiner, Eric. 1995. Explaining the Globalization of Financial Markets: Bringing States Back In. Review of International Political Economy (2)2: 315–41.
12. Federici, Silvia. 1992. The debt crisis, Africa and the New Enclosures.
    In Midnight Notes.
13. Foreman-Peck, James. 1983. A History of the World Economy. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
14. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The consequences of Modernity. Polity Press.
15. Gordon, David. 1988. The Global Economy: New Edifice or Crumbling Foundations? In New Left Review, 168, March/April.
16. Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford, MA:
    Basil Blackwell.
17. Hirst Paul & Thompson Grahame 1996. Globalization in Question. The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. London: Polity Press.
18. Holloway, John. 1995. Global Capital and the National State. In Werner Bonefeld and John Holloway, Global Capital, National State and the Politics of Money. London: MacMillan.
19. Kavaljit S. The Globalization of Finance. London, 1988.
20. Kenichi Ohmae. 1990. The Borderless World. Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. New York: Harper Business.
21. Nader, Ralph and Lori Wallach. 1996. GATT, NAFTA, and the Subversion of the Democratic Process. In, Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (ed. by), The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Toward the Local. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
22. Perelman, Michael. 1998. Classical Political Economy: Primitive Accumulation and the Social Division of Labor. Durham, NC: Duke University Press (forthcoming).
23. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward. 1972. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vintage.
24. Weiss, Linda. 1997. Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State. New Left Review. September/October.
25. Walton John & David Seddon (1994). Free Markets and Food Riots. The Politics of Global Adjustment. Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Waterman, Peter. 1998. Globalisation, Social Movements, and the New Internationalism. Washington, DC: Mansell.