The crisis of hyperglobalization has finally arrived. For decades, the world had been governed by one idea: that more trade, more deregulation and more global capital mobility would automatically lead to prosperity. Stefan de Vylder calls in the report “From bad to worse"the period 1980 to 2016 for the era of hyperglobalization – an era where the economy became increasingly borderless, and where national decision-makers were often subordinated to the logic of markets and big business.
The crisis of hyperglobalization began with an optimistic new world trade order, according to its proponents. Digitalization, low transportation costs, and free trade agreements fueled growth, the spread of technology, and increased prosperity—especially in parts of Asia. Women in many developing countries gained access to paid work, and poverty declined in many places. It looked like a win for the world. Critics like me argued that the idea was that it was easier to have an exploited proletariat in other parts of the world than at home in the West.
Local farms were wiped out, unions were weakened, gaps grew
The critics' side of the coin quickly emerged: local agriculture was being wiped out, unions were being weakened, and inequalities were growing. The new "precariat" was emerging - both in the South and in rich countries like Sweden, where security, permanent jobs and union power began to wither. Decision-making power was shifted from elected parliaments to supranational organizations and anonymous markets.
Globalization was also made possible by a systematic shift of power: upwards to global companies and trade rules, and downwards through privatizations and market control of the public sector. The result was weaker democracies and growing distrust. While the left in the 1990s tried to set limits to the harmful effects of globalization through protests and union organizing, today the criticism has been hijacked by right-wing populists who advocate nationalism and protectionism – often with racist undertones.
Crises of globalization
But several shocks have shaken the old world order:
- The financial crisis of 2008, which exposed that deregulation could create a crash.
- Covid-19, which showed how vulnerable just-in-time production is.
- Russia's war against Ukraine, which made Europe question its dependence on global suppliers.
- The climate crisis, which requires us to produce locally, reduce transportation and redistribute resources.
National governance – without equality and solidarity
Now everyone is talking about “transformation”, “resilience” and “strategic autonomy”. But the problem is that The right often wants more national governance – without equality and solidarity. De Vylder shows that it is not enough to break with hyperglobalization. The crucial thing is the we are building something new – and for wolf sake.
My conclusion: a new green Bretton Woods
I think it is time to go even further than the report dares to suggest.
We should recreate a new green and social Bretton Woods system, where world trade is not governed by short-term profiteering but by democratic responsibility, solidarity and ecological consideration.
- We need one world trade currency which is not linked to any single nation, especially not the United States – but which is based on an internationally coordinated system of balance and justice.
- We should have maximum possible production nationally or regionally, and as little as possible globally – not for nationalistic reasons, but for the sake of the climate.
- Excessive exports and imports lead to losses for both parties, especially when workers in a country are forced to compete down their wages to “become competitive.”
A just world system requires that we put people, nature and democracy before the dictates of the market. Global cooperation, yes – but not a global race to the bottom.
You are so right. The difficulty is finding a program that many people can support and believe in. It is no less difficult to organize an actor who can take it upon himself to fight for the program.
Bretton Woods came into being when 1. the global order had completely collapsed with a world war that had not least wiped out the fortunes of the traditional upper class; 2. labor movements in Scandinavia and the United States had proven to be more active than labor movements had ever been; 3. anti-colonial movements had broken the colonial powers in India and were growing more or less everywhere; and 4. the emerging Soviet Union had proven to be capable of defeating what had until then looked like the world's strongest military power. In addition, 5. the nationalist peasant movement was on the verge of victory in China; of course, this was not known when the agreement was concluded in 1944, but it certainly contributed to giving Bretton Woods its vitality.
It was simply necessary, even for the survival of the upper class, to change most things "so that nothing would change."
There were thus three actors who were prepared to act with considerable strength for change: the labor movements of the industrialized countries, anti-colonial movements, and the Soviet Union. Bretton Woods was a compromise between these and the traditional powers. But for it to be a reasonable compromise, there must be something to compromise on, and some who are willing to compromise.
Where are they today?
The work you do is so important and many are lost in this. The current situation in our society contains a long history.
Our school history books are "sanitized" and washed clean. Washed from truth and future. Right now it's Easter. Why??
The basic conflict that took shape during the 1900th century has been the relationship between West and East. Already in the 1800th century, the United States feared that Russia's riches were becoming a world power.
This is part of a macro policy to transform countries for the global community.
The method is called the “Strategy of Tension” based on Hegel’s philosophy of thesis versus antithesis.
The conflict seeks the middle ground that leads to synthesis. The United States was the thesis and the Soviet Union was given the role of antithesis. It became the Cold War and the path to synthesis.
Two paths then apply. One concerns globalization according to the Western model called The New World Order of 1782. Not for a higher civilization for society to work for the financiers with the help of a communist state as an intermediary.
The world becomes globalized as it is conquered by these financiers, and is now increasingly controlled by them.
Nation states and their national central banking systems are conquered through supranational bodies and institutions.
Against this stands the International. A vision of a future where national borders cease.
Socialist revolutions needed to happen all over the world in order to combat global capitalist hegemony:
– “The last battle it is, for the International brings happiness to all.”
They both contain a future of a global proletariat for the people of the earth under a monetary power.
Everything is based on a hostile social doctrine that wants to destroy human relationships with each other, family, society, nations, religion and nature.
The most treacherous thing that can be designed. The weapon is the economy, chaos for change and who owns the right to create money.
The entire foundation is built on a paganism that rules the world, causing world war and financial chaos. Even the culture conveys the new order and the new truth. "IMAGINE":
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too