The words “Liberal” and “Independent” are controversial subjects as many people disagree on their meaning. During the cold war, both the Soviet Union and the United States of America had very different ideas on what freedom and oppression where and therefore both believed, at least in theory, that they were attempting to rescue the citizens from each other from oppression.
One place to examine this is with the ‘Independent’ Central Banks, over which country’s governments have no or little control. The theory being that if the government has too much control they become authoritarian and this abuses the freedom of their citizens. We have to ask then: Who controls these banks then? Or due to the bank controlling the economy of a country does the bank therefore have control over the government?
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have immense power within the Global Economy, controlling the market and putting countries into debt in order to privatise and buy their resources are under control of the Triad Nations. Within the World Bank the Triad Nations have 63.79% of voting rights and within the IMF they have 66.48%, despite their population only being 14% of the World [Millet. Page 2]. It is not a coincidence therefore that the Triad has 78% of the planets wealth, despite it having fewer resources than Global South nations [Millet. Pages 42-49].
According to Marx the Bourgeois of the ‘Triad’ Nations are currently a World in their own image [Marx. page 19], in 2008 the United States Secretary of State: Condoleezza Rice also said that it was ‘America’s job to remake the World, and in its own image’ [Ravenhill. Page 306].
The Global corporations and institutions make it extremely hard to have any regulation in wealth and therefore often create imbalance and instability. According to John Ravenhill, of the University of Waterloo: “the rapid spread of the recession worldwide was caused in part by the increasing presence of global supply chains in countries trade.” The economy is therefore so interlinked that economic problems can now be played out on a Global, rather than a national, scale [Ravenhill. Page 5]. This idea goes back to the ideology of colonialism, when he Europeans used the term “White Man’s Burden” to describe the need to civilise the Global South, in reality it was just an excuse to build their empire. The idea of the “White Saviour Complex” also comes into play, whilst in reality the people of the Global South are the only ones who can develop their nation for the benefit of the nation, rather than for the benefit of a tiny rich minority and of Imperialist powers.
The current argument taking place between Liberals and Marxists is whether Globalisation encourages or discourages conflict between countries, Liberals believing that it helps, whilst Marxists believe it hinders peace. Political philosopher Immanuel Kant predicted that in the future we would have a global free market and monarchies would be replaced with republics, bringing about peace [O’Brien. Page 23]. This may sound like Capitalist Utopianism to many analysts.
It is clear that as long as the markets of the Global South nations are controlled by the Triad, they will never get their hands on the wealth which is rightfully theirs. This means that we must see an end to ‘independent’ central banks and privatisation of important services. The Imperialists know this and therefore will fight to keep their capitalist empire by any means necessary.
By Hüseyin Diakides
- Ravenhill, J, 2014. Global Political Economy. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Karl Marx, 1960. Essential Left (U.Books). Edition. Allen & Unwin.
- O’Brien, R, 2010. Global Political Economy. 3rd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Damien Millet, 2004. Who Owes Who: 50 Questions about World Debt (Global Issues). Edition. Zed Books.