Response - Globalization

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

At heart, imperialism refers to the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Globalization on the other hand, is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together.

The statement is true to the extent that Western Leaders, particularly the USA, have been the forerunner and leader in the global economic order, extending their power and influence all over the world. With globalization, we witness an integration of national economies into the international economy through mediums such as trade, foreign investment, capital flows and technology. For instance, through the creation of the Bretton Woods system (backed by USA) in 1944, consisting of the IMF, World Bank and GATT, 2nd, 3rd world economies are now exposed to western capitalist style of governance, one widely advocated and used by these Western Leaders. This is an illustration of how imperialism, under the hood of globalization, has allowed for the USA to establish economic control and influence over these benefitting nations.

Nonetheless, it is an overgeneralization to commit to the statement, as national sovereignty is still very much relevant in today’s context. Countries affected by globalization still have control over state affairs and policies, unlike that of Western Imperialism in the past. For instance, in the 1980s, socialist Burma and Vietnam had closed their doors to international trade through adoption of a ‘closed economy’. Furthermore, it is obvious that the global economy and international relations today are upheld by interdependency between nations, in order to benefit mutually. Thus, it is safe to conclude that globalization is not imperialism repackaged, but a showcase of Western influence over global issues.

Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

According to the Dell Theory, it is believed that no two countries in a major global supply chain will ever fight a war against each other. In other words, one of the reasons why countries will refrain from attacking each other is because they stand to gain economic benefits through cooperation. With globalization, increased interaction between countries would lead to increased cooperation, not just in the field of economics, but also in other areas such as political alliances. Increased dependence on other countries helps to build a more peaceful world.

However, the Dell Theory is an over-generalized and over-simplified depiction of the world; it does not apply to every single country. Certain countries (albeit very few) have limited interaction with the rest of the world despite globalization, such as North Korea, and for these countries, they have little to gain from other countries and remain a potential source of global violence and conflict. Some third world countries still remain enclosed and share little interaction with the rest of the world due to inherent constraints like social disorder and technological limitations, and globalization would fail to address the problems of these countries and the world would remain conflict-laden.

Although globalization has created several problems for the world and further propagated them, it is ironic (but thankful) that globalization has also allowed us to more efficiently keep track of such problems and clamp down on them with no national or geographical limitations. Therefore, we must acknowledge that globalization remains a double-edged sword with both good and bad implications, but more importantly, it is up to the global community, rather than the trend of globalization itself, to create a more peaceful world.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

Undeniably, there may be some erosion of our culture and traditions as other cultures increasingly influence our practices and way of living. It is apparent that Singapore is changing at a rapid rate, becoming more westernized. This is part of integrating into the global economy, which is largely dominated by America. However, although that may be the case, I think that it is still possible to preserve our unique culture and traditions as globalization is taking place. This would have to depend on the efforts of the state and the people of the country. For instance, the state can help to preserve the heritage of the country by promoting traditional festivals. In Singapore, the government puts in great efforts to retain and enhance places with a sense of history and identity. These conserved buildings can be seen in Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Boat Quay, which were the early ethnic settlements.

However, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. Efforts of the government have to go hand in hand with that of the people in order to successfully retain our culture and tradition. People of the new generation especially, do not see the importance of retaining our own cultures and traditions. This can be seen during Chinese New Year which has become just another opportunity to travel for many. If our own people do not see the significance of it, then it would be difficult to achieve both aims.

Chin Yik Sin
Goh Ying Ying
Zhang Zhefei
09S07A

Blog response on globalization

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

There is now greater dominant direct control by western nations (where most of the MNCs are based in) over other less economically developed countries (eg. China, India) by utilizing their manpower there. This makes these economies increasingly dependent and beholden to these economies, since most of their employment is dependent on these MEDCs.

Beyond that, media advertising and a growing culture of "brand conciousness" can be seen as a way for established Western brands to gain a foothold in other markets. Soft power, in terms of music and entertainment can also be a way in which new imperialism is being spread, with Hollywood dominating box offices everywhere.

However, the emergence and globalization of the local brand of Bollywood and its growing popularity and success worldwide can be a direct counter to Hollywood and thus, it can be seen that there is a limit to actually the west becoming more imperialistic through globalization, since there are still channels for such local industries to emerge and have a foothold on the world market. Brand consciousness can work both ways, since decidedly Asian ones etc are also making their way to the West.

Thus, it's not so much imperialism, more a cultural mishmash, with the cosmopolitan equilibrium is shifting closer to other countries now that they have access to the same tools as Western countries. There is a global shift from "western-led" globalization, to one which is truly globalized, and a reducing trend of "western imperialism" and proliferation of the world market with china leading the pack.


Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

The Dell theory suggests that, “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.”

However, the thing is: “Not everyone is an employee of Dell”, so there are people who fall through the cracks.

Globalization makes it easier for them to form covert operations with each other, as can be seen from drug trafficking being on the rise, like how Nigerian drug traffickers can easily come to Singapore to hire drug mules. These drugs in turn fuel violence in other parts of the world, like Columbia.

Increasingly global terrorist networks due to globalisation also make it difficult for government to contain their activities. They are now more connected, and it has become easier to communicate and hold potentially dangerous global terrorist threats, like through spreading terrorist notions on the web, like the Mujahedeen's poison's handbook.

Although at the same time, globalization makes police efforts more concerted and they are able to track these terror suspects together. As they are now more reliant on global communications, it also makes them easier to track. Like how there are international efforts to police the Gulf of Aden, given the pirate crisis.

Overall, we feel that if we compare against previous events, globalisation has created a more peaceful world, with less major large-scale wars. There is now increasing goodwill between governments these days, with closer ties and summits to solve global problems. While random spates of violence stemming from certain margins in society may seem to be on the rise, we are also now more aware and sympathetic to the needs and problems with the marginalized today due to easier access to world news these days, and there are signs of measures to rectify and address these grievances, which will improve conditions and help prevent such acts from happening in the future. World leaders can like pressure leaders of these countries to actually address these issues.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

We can be unique, as can be seen from Singapore’s efforts to preserve heritage, like Chinatown, and promote the arts scene, as they recognize the need to be unique to stand out in this globalized world. It can also help in strengthening our psychological defence, to give citizens a sense of belonging to the country. This is especially important in our globalized world, where many local talents often look to go abroad.

When we say “mini America”, we're already talking about a cross cultural thing. But since America really doesn't have much other than the cultures of its own immigrants, more a “melting pot” of cultures.

However, beyond that, we feel that what is most important is what the citizens of that country choose to embrace, like how there's this village in Italy that kicked out their Macdonalds. Thus, we can't turn into a mini America unless we let ourselves to.

Governments can help prevent the impressionable youths of today from becoming "mini-americans" by promoting our own culture, while not being xenophobic about it.

Response by: Abigail Kang, Xue Qian, Shi Hua, Nicholas, Edith of 09S07A

Will globalisation benefit or disadvantage the poor in the world?

During the past decades, we have heard steady proclamations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank stating that their main aim to push for globalization is to help the poor and alleviate their suffering. However, in recent years, critics of globalization have claimed that globalization does not benefit the poor but on the contrary, disadvantage them. Now, whose claims are correct? And more importantly, does globalization help the poor and if so, to what extent?

Before I begin with my response to the above question, I would like to define the word - globalization. Globalisation can be defined in many different ways but I would like to define globalization as the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, a process by which people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. Hence, according to this definition, globalization is not limited to the economic aspect but can refer to any aspect like the social aspect whereby cultures are exchanged. In my response, I would talk about the benefits of globalization to the poor and then, the disadvantages followed by a conclusion which weighs the benefits and disadvantages on the whole.

The benefits of globalization for the poor are many.

Firstly, globalization enables developing countries to engage with the rest of the world and in so doing, increase their economic growth, solving the poverty problem in their country. In the past, developing countries were not able to tap on the world economy due to trade barriers etc. and as such, they were left out on the shelves, not sharing the same economic growth that the developed countries had. However, with globalization, the IMF and the World Bank encouraged developing countries to undergo market reforms and structural changes through large loans. Most developing countries started to take steps to open up their markets by eliminating tariffs and deregulating their economies etc. and eventually, multi-national corporations (MNCs) from developed countries were able to invest in these developing nations, creating jobs for the poor. For example, rapid growth in India and China has caused world poverty to decline. Between 1987 and 1998, the share of the world's population that is poor fell from about 25 percent to 21 percent; the absolute number fell from an estimated 1.2 billion to 1.1 billion.

Secondly, through increased economic growth, living standards and life expectancy for the poor are inevitably improved. With more wealth, developing nations are able to provide better health care services and sanitation for its people. The poor will not be plagued with diseases which arise from dirty water and improper health care and as such, people fall ill less often, increasing life expectancy. In fact, with more money, the government of developing countries can also provide education for the poor. Illiteracy rates will thus decrease. This is seen in Morocco, a developing country, whose illiteracy rate fell to 39 percent just recently, in 2009. All in all, living standards and life expectancy of developing nations increase through economic gains from globalization. According to the World Bank, with globalization, more than 85 percent of the world’s population can expect to live for at least sixty years and this is actually twice as long as the average life expectancy 100 years ago.

However, apart from the benefits of globalization, we must also note the many disadvantages that globalization has created for the poor.

Firstly, globalization increases the inequality between the rich and the poor. As mentioned in my first point, globalization enables developing countries to increase their economic growth. This may seem like a rosy picture for world poverty but in actual fact, this is not the case. Many developing nations do benefit from globalization but then again, many of such nations do lag behind. In the past two decades, China and India have grown faster than the already rich nations. However, countries like Africa still have the highest poverty rates, in fact, the rural areas of China which do not tap on global markets also suffer greatly from such high poverty. Now, why do some developing nations benefit while others do not? The answer lies with the theory of globalization in itself. Those countries which have successfully used the ideal policies which the IMF and the World Bank (the IMF and World Bank push for globalization) have proposed will stand to benefit more while those who fail to, will be on the losing end. As such, when we look at globalization, it’s actually not the case that globalization has caused some of the developing nations to benefit a lot but rather it has caused many to be left out altogether.

Another reason for the inequality between the rich and the poor is the fact that there’s always something at stake whenever developed countries help the developing nations. Hence, there’s some kind of condition put in place which benefits the developed country and to some extent, enables them to exploit the poorer nations. For example, after giving financial aid to Tanzania, the IMF demanded the sale of its water system to foreign owners and an 80 percent increase in the price of its cooking oil and all these did not alleviate but rather worsened the poverty problem in Tanzania.

Secondly, globalization facilitates the spread of new diseases in developing nations. As mentioned in my second point, globalization increases living standards and hence, decreases the development of diseases. However, from another perspective, globalization does enable the spread of diseases from developed nations to developing ones. Due to increased trade and travel, diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS and bird flu etc. are facilitated across borders. One good example will be that of Africa. In Africa alone, the AIDS crisis has reduced the life expectancy of its people to less than 33 years. In fact, the in surge of MNCs onto developing nations’ soil also causes diseases, which are common in developed countries, to develop in developing nations. For example, with globalization, fast food restaurants like McDonald’s and cigarette-producing firms are likely to tap on the cheap labor in developing countries. When these MNCs arrive, the locals will tend to be influenced by them and thus, start to consume fast food and smoke cigarettes. Eventually, diseases, like obesity and lung cancer, will plague the poor and this will become a serious problem, causing a huge financial burden to the developing nation.

Thirdly, the indigenous and national cultures and languages of developing nations are usually eroded by modernized globalised cultures. With globalization, the locals of developing nations have more contact with the people of developed countries and hence, they get influenced, changing their once simplistic mindset and start seeing things in a different light. In fact, they start to acquire new languages like English etc. and modernized cultures like fast food too. With knowledge of greener pastures out there, locals also start to migrate to developed nations to enjoy a better quality of life. Hence, when such locals return to their homeland, they speak with a different accent, behave differently and become a totally different person, losing their traditional cultures and lifestyle. In fact, they too relate their experiences to the younger generation and encourage them to go abroad. As such, this becomes a vicious cycle and the traditional way of life is lost in the process. In the social aspect, globalization thus becomes a disadvantage for the poorer nations.

In conclusion, globalization brings many benefits and disadvantages to the poor in the world. However, the disadvantages tend to outweigh the benefits on the whole and hence, globalization is definitely not the solution to solve world poverty. Governments of developed nations should actually collaborate to formulate a new policy or strategy which would enable the progress of more developing nations, leaving fewer of such nations behind. However, we must also note that every strategy has its benefits and costs and hence, there are bound to be countries at the losing end.

Brian Sim, Jamie Chow, Yong Sheng, Toan, Bao Rong

Blog Response

Can we be part of the global economy & still retain our own unique tradition and cultures, or will we end up being mini-Americans?

The process of reshaping an economy and trying to fit it into the global market may lead to injecting new elements into the existing social culture,to include more cosmopolitic elements in the culture, especially in the entertainment industry -pop culture- in an economy. The entertainment industry is important because it represents one prominent aspect of human experience of the modern people today.

One of the most important multinational companies that influences culture to a large extent in our society is the MTV. MTV is introducing the American pop music into the local entertainment via many different channels like Youtube on the internet and Facebook advertising. Products authorised or directly produced by MTV are being sold in famous CD shops such as HMV and CD-Rama. Clips of MTV music videos are sometimes seen in public gathering places like McDonald's and inside shopping malls like Junction 8. The MTV not only introduces music, but also the American culture and values that are inherently displayed in most of its music products, and these culture elements- such as pursuit for the American Dream, liberal display of sexuality and individuality of teenagers - are no longer American but also becoming part of our local culture. More and more teenagers are seen wearing shirts featuring American pop singers like Eminem , and many are seen wearing the shirts with the lyric excerpts printed on it. This fashion signalled to us that the content of these musical products are being more and more accepted by local youth, and this to some exent made them mini-Americans because their culture is basically copied from the American pop culture, which is sold them by MNCs like MTV- thanks to globalisation.

Some may argue that local youth is becoming more and more media literate and is able to view these contents critically rather than just to accept all the culture contents blindly. Now, having said that teens are media literate, it is also noteworthy that the underlying assumption for this media literacy to function well in the youth is to provide them with a benchmark to allow them to distinguish the right from the wrong. The fact that local music industry is not as developed as the one in the States, and that not much local musical products that are on display advocates for our uniquely Singaporean culture (except for those special editions on sale during National Day Celebrations) raises the concern that our local youth may be losing their own identity, precisely because there is not enough counterparts in our local industry to offset the overwhelming influence of the American pop culture.

In conclusion, we think that our Singaporean youths are losing their own identity and they are
becoming mini-Americans in this more globalised world.

Chelsia Goh.Tan Kia Ern Michelle. Liu Ruisi. Teng Kersheng.

Will globalization benefit or disadvantage the poor in the world?

Globalization has opened up the international market so that the developed countries could experience faster economic growth. Companies in developed countries begin to outsource in the less developed countries, as there are abundance of cheap labour. Although this maybe seen as exploitation by some, but to the poor, working at factories is at least better than plowing the land and facing the many uncertainties associated. Hence, globalization has benefited the poor by providing them with better working conditions and a more stable source of income in this aspect.

However, another aspect of globalization, foreign aid, has not been so successful. One particular problem came from the functioning of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its policies. IMF is founded with the purpose of ensuring global economic stability. However, the policies IMF had designed for many developing countries were not suitable to their context. Also, the IMF is often oblivious to external views other than its own. Developing countries seeking assistance need to fulfill certain ‘conditions’ and would have their funding cut if they did not follow protocol. This often leaves the developing countries with little choice. For example, the financial market liberalization pushed by the IMF had caused mass bank failures in Kenya between 1993-1994 and soaring interest rates ensued. The forced cutbacks in health expenditure in Thailand by the IMF had allowed AIDs to increase.


In conclusion, globalization has its benefits but too often these benefits are not distributed to those most in need of them.

By Yande, Yadi, Arnold, Melissa and Chenxuan

Response to the 3 quetions on GLOBALIZATION

Will globalization benefit or disadvantage the poor?

BENEFIT:
- The World Bank gives out loans to the poorer countries to support their national development. Therefore, the poor countries gain the monetary incentive to build their nations - Branches set up by MNCs in poorer countries provide source of employment for the people there. - allows developing nations to grow economically through trade (china, india able to exploit lower costs (comparitive advantage))

DISADVANTAGE:
- Inequality occurs as most of the benefits (in terms of profits) of globalization goes to the MNCs
(in the infopack, there is an example pointing out that from one shirt which costs $40, the workers only earn 15 cents off it)
- Exploitation of their resources due to globalisation
e.g. MNCs wanted to go to Bolivia to extract lithium, but the extraction would lead to environmental problems like pollution for the locals living there.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our traditions and cultures? or will we end up being mini Americans?

- Worryingly, there is indeed dilution of indigenous culture in some countries while they try to develop. Americanization is taking place in many Asian countries (fast food culture etc). Some liberal ideas from the west contradict with the traditional conservative beliefs, causing a dilemma in those who are caught up between the two.

- Although globalization leads us to adopting the American culture, but we can still do something about it and preserve our unique culture
One such problem: erosion of language: increasingly, students in Singapore are losing their ability to speak Chinese because they live in an environment where English is the official and most common language. Some of them only study Chinese for the sake of passing the compulsory exams. However, this problem can be solved by policies and campaigns implemented.
Moreover, globalization can be beneficial if we retain our own culture and learn to appreciate/understand foreign ones.

Globalization leads to peaceful or conflict-filled world?

CONFLICT:
- Globalization makes the world interconnected, and leads to more busybodies.
e.g. America tries to stop Iraq from its nuclear plan.
- Globalization widens the gap between the rich and poor when the unbalanced distribution of wealth is worsened by, Social tension is created.
- If there is a lack of understanding and communication, people from different culture may find it difficult to tolerate each other.

PEACE:
- Increased interdependence of countries means that gains out of wars/conflicts are minimized since national assets are at stake and countries affect one another’s economic survival.


We are: Wei Liang, QiaoEr, Claire, and Xiao2 ((:

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

By definition, imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. With globalization, we see local and regional trends spreading out to the rest of the world through a mix of economic, sociocultural, technological and political influences. This can be attributed to international economic activities such as trade and investments as well as the wide usage of technology. To say that globalization is imperialism repackaged is true to a certain extent in that many developing countries are adopting methods of developing their economies that have been tried and tested by the Western economic powerhouses. In this way, we see that Western countries have in a way, extended their power and influence. This can be attributed to the setting up of MNCs in the developing countries and the consultative role the 1st World takes up. Coupled with the intervention by the 3 pillars of the global economy today, namely the World Bank, IMF and WTO, we see that Western countries have imposed their capitalist ways on the 3rd World. Hence, it can be said that globalization is imperialism repackaged.

However, it is important to note that the 3rd World still possesses some form of sovereignty in that they still have their own powers and rights and are not under extensive control by the Western nations. These nations still are able to make their own economic decisions, such as monetary policy and what industries to focus on. As such, while they may be influenced by the 1st World, they are in no way, under their legislation. Furthermore, there is increased interdependency nowadays. Outsourcing to the 3rd World in order to benefit from the lower costs of production has seen the 1st World's dependency on the 3rd World. The 3rd World has also acted as a larger market base for the established Western firms, while the 3rd World has been dependent on the 1st World for technology, expertise and even money. In conclusion, globalization is not imperialism per se, but rather an international exchange of influences and interdependency. Although it has been a case of strong Western influence over recent years that seemingly made globalization seem like Western imperialism.

Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

More peaceful:

o Globalization results in countries becoming more dependent on one another economically. As supported by the Dell Theory, countries that are dependent on one another will refrain from going to war as a war may jeopardize their economy. An example would be Taiwan and China. Despite their territorial disputes, they have not gone to war with each other as they are actually highly interdependent on each other.
o Globalization has helped improve the financial situations in countries all over the world, particularly third world countries. As such, people are able to afford more education such that with education, they can seek good jobs and their standard of living increases. This can help create a more peaceful world as can be seen from the statements of the sole surviving bomber of the Mumbai train attacks. He testified that he joined the Lashka-e-Taiba (the terrorist group responsible for the attacks) as he had hoped to improve his family’s living conditions etc. As he was poor and uneducated, the only way he could earn money was to join the terrorist group. Hence, it can be seen that as globalization can help increase educational opportunities to people in the lower-income group, violent acts/terrorism can be reduced when the people are able to seek good, well-paying jobs.

More conflict-laden:

o While globalization can bring about wealth when there is reduction of trade barriers etc, globalization does not bring about wealth to everybody. This is because the increase in wealth is usually concentrated in the hands of the rich. Hence, the rich gets richer such that there is a widening of income gap. When this happens, the people in the low-income group tend to get dissatisfied such that they will try to retaliate through means such as violence/terrorism to make the world sit up and listen to them.
o Globalization has brought up the establishment of many Free-Trade Agreements (FTA). However, this has not totally improved the ease of trading in the economy due to protectionism still practiced by various governments. Forms of protectionism include export subsidies and tariffs. An example of protectionism would be direct subsidies whereby governments help their firms to adapt to the global market such that there is actually protectionism taking place.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

We can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions, however, this is only possible if action taken by the country to preserve its tradition through conservation and promotion of the cultural scene in the country.

By being part of the global economy, where market forces of demand and supply takes place, we see countries producing the goods and services that have higher demand, mostly from developed countries like America. With this increased output of such goods and services, and increased economic trade established between the countries established as a result, there is an increased level of integration and interdependence of the various countries' economies. With this increased interdependence between countries comes increased mingling of various cultures due to the effect of globalisation, enabled by improvements in infrastructure and IT. The worry here is that countries would subsequently lose their culture and forget their traditions as we all head towards a more Westernised way of living, which is seen in many developing countries as an ideal form of lifestyle with a higher standard of living, which they then pursue.

This can be seen in many newly industralised countries (NIEs) such as India, where the new generation is perceived to have a very different mindset from the older generations, having less respect for their festivals and rituals, which have been said to be the "very basis and foundation" of their culture. Instead, we see a new generation of Indians who have more lofty ambitions and aims in life, and wish to achieve them, which makes them busier and therefore having less time for these rituals. In another way, they are also less interested in these rituals as they pursue more practical ambitions of being able to stand up for themselves economically and aim to not be reliant on the nuclear unit of the family, which used to serve as an important "safety net" for the younger generation in the economic sense. By drifting away from the family, this important influence of the older generations slowly dissipates and this leaves the younger generation totally exposed to the commercialism that is the very reason why they are turning into mini-Americas, forgetting their own unique cultures and traditions.

Yet, we must not forget that the direction that a country takes with respect to the movement of culture within a country is largely dependent on the stance that the government takes. This stance refers to how much cultural exchange the government would allow for its country among other countries, which can be controlled and regulated. The reason why America for example is a giant melting pot of different cultures is because of the liberal stance which its government has taken, which has led to the large immigrant influx from Europe, Africa and South America. This eventually resulted in the prospering of their respective cultures within the country, becoming what we know of America, which is essentially very much like what the world would be like if everyone took the same stance as their government did.

We must, however, take into account that many countries put in a lot of effort to preserve their respective cultures and rich traditions, be it through investing in the local cultural scene or promoting nation-wide festivals and commemorating them. One prime example would be seen in China, where their government takes steps to maintain their traditions, be it the Chinese New Year rituals, which are maintained by most if not all Chinese yearly without fail, even if they do not happen to be in China, or investing in traditional Chinese medicine even if Western medical science is becoming more readily accepted by the rest of the world due to the greater scientific acknowledgement. While people would feel that the old-fashioned traditions would slow down their pace of innovation and development because they are outdated and no longer applicable to the new age of information and technology, many people still retain strong emotional bonds for their unique traditions which they had become accustomed to, passed down from countless generations before. This effort to retain their culture goes a long way in preventing them from turning into the mini-Americas mentioned earlier.

Countries also have further incentive to retain their respective cultures and traditions because of the role of tourism, which is becoming a more important source of income for many countries, creating jobs and increasing economic growth at the same time. One important form of tourism is heritage/cultural tourism, where one experiences the culture of the country primarily through its arts scene. By maintaining their unique culture through the investment into museums and supporting the tradition of indigenous cultural communities such as its festivals and rituals, the country would be able to attract more tourists to its country, which would be beneficial to its economy. An example can be seen in Italy, where opera remains an important source of entertainment in the country, and it is the site of the history of Roman culture, seen through the preservation of famous historical sites such as The Colosseum etc. With an increased focus on the preservation of the country's culture through the government's efforts once again, it is unlikely that the country would become a mini-America, even if it becomes a part of the global economy.

In addition, with the phenomenon of "glocalisation" existent in the world today, which is by definition people being willing and able to "think globally and act locally," countries are able to tap into their own strengths and areas of speciality for use on the global scale. An example would be yoga, which originated in India, and is now a very popular form of physical exercise and mental discipline around the world. At the same time, this helps to not only retain its own unique culture and lifestyle, but even seeks to showcase it to the world and change the lifestyle of others, preventing the country and others from turning into mini-Americas.

In conclusion, we can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions to a large extent, but only if the government chooses to mitigate the changes brought about by globalisation and take control over the state of the culture and lifestyle of the people.

By Yuwen, Timothy, Ivan, Ruiting of 7A

Globalisation

Will globalisation make the world a more peaceful or a more conflict filled place?

PEACEFUL
- Economic prosperity for many countries; prosperity promotes democracy and the people will not want to go to war because resources and a stable lifestyle will have to be sacrificed for it.
- Tariffs are reduced in most countries as they become more open to trade
- Countries try to find their comparative advantage (eg. China's labour) and challenge high cost producers in rich countries.
- If every country produces goods based on their comparative advantage, global output would increase and if there is free trade, this would enrich all countries.
- E.g. India's call centre industry may collapse if she went to war with Pakistan, the industry leaders pressured the authorities not to go to war.

- Interconnectivity/interdependence
- Each country's issue becomes part of the world's issue, so a weak link in a developing country may affect the 'supply chain' and the top of these chains (i.e. big, rich economies) would be more inclined to help in the benefit of self-interest.
- If a country wants to go to war with another, other nations can help by mediation (it would not be beneficial to them if they went to war because precious resources would be lost, plus there could be economic repercussions in the world which would directly affect them)


CONFLICT
- Some developing countries may feel that it is unfair that the bigger economies are getting the most out of globalisation. May harbour grudges.

- Some people groups may also be unhappy that only the rich in society are benefitting (no trickle-down effect) E.g. India has young women working and spending like American women, but a short drive out of the urban area can have slums where there is no proper sanitation and running water. The widening income inequality may also contribute to social unrest within a country itself.

- Free trade all over the world may result in say, Country A having a consistent balance of payments surplus (basically more money inflow than outflow) which is okay by itself, but since BoP is a zero-sum game, another Country B would have more outflow of money than inflow (something like losing money). B may not be happy about her citizens buying so many imports from A and this may strain relationships between A and B.

Singapore Replies To 'Big Brother' By S.R. Nathan

The Washington Post

9 March 1996, Final Edition

Stephen Wrage, who condemned Singapore in "Big Brother's Home" [Outlook, Feb 11], claimed that when he applied to teach at the National University of Singapore, the authorities demanded that the Singapore ambassador in Washington -- myself -- interview him for political reliability. The university never asked me to interview Wrage, nor did I do so.

It is untrue that Wrage was only permitted to teach a class at the university after 10 weeks in the country. He gave his first tutorial on Aug. 5, 1994, four weeks after his arrival, during the first week of the semester.

Wrage said that his department chairman brought two agents from the Internal Security Department to a colleague's office, where they questioned his colleague and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files. This colleague was Dr. Christopher Lingle. The officers were not security agents but ordinary police officers from the local precinct, investigating the case that led to Lingle and the International Herald Tribune's being convicted of contempt of court. They went to interview Lingle in the presence of his department chairman, and Lingle himself handed over the documents.

The police never visited Wrage's home to demand that he empty water from a saucer under a potted plant. But public health inspectors do routinely visit homes to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, which transmit dangerous diseas es like malaria and dengue.

Wrage reported that in elections ballots are serially numbered, implying that this is to trace how people vote. Numbering ballots was standard British practice, introduced by the British colonial government to prevent stuffing of ballot boxes. After counting, the ballot boxes are sealed in the presence of candidates and their agents and are stored in the vaults of the Supreme Court for six months until the ballots are publicly incinerated.

Wrage said that Singaporeans can have their leases terminated and their apartments seized on a pretext. The Housing and Development Board repossesses an apartment only when the lessee breaches lease terms clearly stipulated in the law, for example by subletting to illegal immigrants. Compensation is paid. In 1995, out of 600,000 public housing apartments, only 15 were re-acquired.

There are no monitors in public housing apartment blocks to report on young women who have illegitimate children. Having a child outside marriage is not grounds for the housing board to take back an apartment.

Contrary to Wrage's allegations, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a compulsory savings plan, not a tax. CPF savings are protected by law against all claims. The government did not touch a cent of Lingle's CPF, which he withdrew in full. Lingle's other savings in the Academic Staff Provident Fund were also protected, except for debts due to the government and the university. Lingle's debts to the university were paid under a court order obtained by the attorney general following garnishee proceedings.

Wrage said students must be certified politically reliable before they may attend a university. This requirement was introduced in 1964 to meet the then serious threat of communist infiltration and subversion. But it was suspended 18 years ago, in 1978, after the threat receded.

Wrage repeated the allegation by Lingle and the International Herald Tribune that the judiciary are "utterly compliant." The Tribune admitted that this allegation was unfounded and apologized to the Singapore judiciary. The 1995 World Competitiveness Report, by the World Economic Forum, placed Singapore ahead of Hong Kong, Sweden, Britain and the United States in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.

Wrage said that foreign student debaters had to sit in silence and watch the locals debate because someone had failed to apply for a permit from the Internal Security Department. The Internal Security Department had nothing to do with this. Foreigners who debate in public need the proper visa, which the organizers of the event did not apply for. It would have been issued immediately if they had. Although the foreign debaters did not speak at some exhibition debates, they did participate in the competition. The Philippines team won.

Wrage criticized the government's response to Catherine Lim, who had attacked the prime minister and his policies. He said she was "repeatedly humiliated on the front page of the Straits Times by Mr. Lee himself." Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew never responded to Lim's articles. It was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong who rebutted her arguments and asked her to put her views to the ultimate test, by standing for elections and convincing the people that she was right and the prime minister was wrong.

How could this have humiliated Catherine Lim? Is this not how democracy is supposed to work?



The writer is Singapore's ambassador to the United States.

Big Brother's Home: The Country Is a Model, All Right -- of Dressed-Up Dictatorship By Stephen Wrage

The Straits Times, 14 February 1996

The Washington Post published two commentaries on Singapore on Sunday. The first, by Nathan Gardels, which we reproduced on this page yesterday, praised Singapore for its achievements and argued that America could learn a few things from it. In stark contrast, the second article, by Stephen Wrage, was a scathing attack on Singapore. We reproduce it below not because we agree with it - indeed we cannot disagree more with it - but so that our readers are aware of what is being said about the country by its critics.

The Washington Post

11 February 1996, Final Edition

When Alexis de Tocqueville wanted to look into new forms of governance, he travelled west to the new world and spent nine months studying America. With the same idea in mind, but supposing that these days to find the new world one travels East, I went to teach for a year in Singapore.

I especially wanted to look into what Singaporean officials tout as a new, unique blend of Confucianism and capitalism, an Asian style of governance that corrects what they call the West’s excessive emphasis on the rights of the individual.

Singapore’s Government, the argument goes, focuses on the needs of the community and so spares its country the ills of the West while it promotes prosperity and general happiness. This new form of governance they call “authoritarian democracy”.

Since that country is a good deal smaller than the United States (three million people in a little over twice the area of Washington), I got to see it very thoroughly over the course of a year. At the outset, the country didn’t seem strange. Singapore is a modern, Westernised, consumerist society. The cultural overlap between Singapore and Tyson’s corner must be at least 80 per cent.

Nor was the famous skyline hard to get used to: “Like Rosslyn on steroids,” a DC friend remarked. The longer I stayed, however, the more peculiar Singapore became.

There was a grim air about the university. On the chairman’s desk, propped up on a little easel and aimed to catch your eye as you sat in the visitor’s chair, was a small sign that read, “An ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness”.

Though I came from a military academy and was not likely to be a radical, the Singaporean authorities demanded that I be interviewed for political reliability by their ambassador in Washington. I was directed to furnish copies of everything I had published and was required to have a phone interview with the acting chair of the department before I finally was pronounced acceptable. Even so, I was in the country for almost 10 weeks before I was permitted to teach a class.

It took months to piece together what I was seeing in Singapore. Why did the chairman of my department bring two agents from the Internal Security Department to the office of one of my colleagues and watch while they questioned him for 90 minutes and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files?

Why did the newspapers brag of the Government’s ability “to take a firm hand with irresponsible journalists”? Why was I visited after 10 pm by two policemen who demanded that I empty the water out of the saucer underneath a potted plant on my balcony (a threat to public health, they explained) and which of my neighbours had called them to turn me in?

It took the entire year to appreciate fully the achievement of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the man who ruled Singapore as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990 and is still its dominant political figure in his role as elder statesman. Slowly his astonishing array of social controls became clear and the character of ‘authoritarian democracy’ became obvious. I found that no organisation on the island has been left unpenetrated by his People’s Action Party. His control of that compact and technologically sophisticated country is more total than any other national leader has ever achieved. Mr Lee has created the most perfectly realised autocracy anywhere, the world’s state-of-the-art dictatorship.

The press, the police and the military as well as the electoral, legal, housing, education, trade union and employment systems are all entirely under his control, so dissent, even at the polls (where voting is compulsory and ballots are serially numbered) is quixotic. Total government control of a very successful economy permits the regime to scatter largesse, so compliance is richly rewarded.

Mr Lee has woven a web of rewards and punishments around every aspect of life in Singapore. Nine out of 10 Singaporeans live in housing on 99-year lease from the Government. Their leases can be terminated on a pretext. In other words, their apartment, which typically represents most of their savings, can be seized.

On the other hand, if they behave well they get to live cheaply in safe, subsidised, spartan housing in a society where other real estate has been bid to well above Washington levels. If they do not behave, the consequences are dire. If, for example, a young woman engages in what the Government sees as morally inappropriate behaviour, such as having a child outside of marriage, she may be reported by the monitors in every housing block and expelled.

Singaporeans’ pensions are held hostage: Between 30 and 40 per cent of most people’s income is taxed away into a “Central Provident Fund” and held by the Government. Those who behave get a sterling reward: Their compulsory contribution is matched one-for-one by the Government. On the other hand, they live in fear that their retirement will be expropriated. My colleague Christopher Lingle, the American academic referred to above who angered the authorities by publishing a piece in the International Herald Tribune mocking Singaporean propaganda, lost about $20,000, all his savings in Singapore, in this way.

The education system is similarly rigged to provide huge incentives for compliance and lifelong punishments for deviance. Students must be certified politically reliable by the high schools or junior colleges before they may attend a university. Males undergo two or more years of compulsory military training before college; some among them are recruited by the Internal Security Department and directed to report on their instructors and their classmates. Refusing such recruitment, I was told, is not an option.

In sum, civil society has been dismantled; the judiciary is utterly compliant and the legal profession has been reduced to a largely technical function. Complaints may be submitted to the official “Government Feedback Unit”.

Legal protections of such basic rights as habeas corpus have been abridged and trial by jury has been abolished. Paradoxically, Singaporeans were much freer under the British than they are today under Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Their civil liberties had much fuller legal protection when they were colonials.

When one district in the city had the temerity to elect to parliament a candidate from the tiny, feeble opposition party, the Government launched a barrage of allegations, investigations and legal proceedings against him that lasted eight years, imprisoned him and left him ruined. When the victim took his case to the Queen’s Privy Council in Britain, they found he had been “fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which he was not guilty.” One year later, Parliament abolished appeals to the Privy Council for disciplinary matters.

Mr Lee also warned the dissenters that “the Government will not be blackmailed by the people... To make sure the excesses (votes against his party) are not carried too far... it is necessary to put some safeguards in the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle and get what they want without running the risk of losing the services of the Government.”

Nonetheless, Mr Lee’s party intervenes to keep that opposition party alive, alternately mocking, intimidating and infiltrating it, then appointing a handful of its candidates to the Parliament, in order to sustain the fiction that genuine politics are possible in Singapore.

The striving for control takes laughable turns. Last year high school debating teams were imported from several countries to demonstrate Singapore’s openness, but someone failed to apply in time for the permit that must be granted by the Internal Security Department for any formal gathering. No exception could be made: the foreign students had to sit silent and watch the locals debate each other.

At other times, the control grows ugly. The leading creative writer of Singapore, Catherine Lim, was attacked and repeatedly humiliated on the front page of The Straits Times by Mr Lee himself after she made a cautious plea to the People’s Action Party to soften its style or risk creating an “affective divide” between itself and the people.

Mr Lee used the occasion to establish a new limit on political expression, describing how he would confront those who questioned him. “I would isolate the leaders, the trouble-makers, get them exposed, cut them down to size, ridicule them, so that everybody understands that it’s not such a clever thing to do. Governing does not mean just being pleasant. If you want a pleasant result, just as with children, you cannot just be pleasant and nice.”

Such language was printed with approval in all the papers of Singapore. Editorialists professed to find his statements “reassuring”.

But Mr Lee went further in his intimidation of Ms Lim: “Have a one-on-one. I’ll meet you. You will not write an article - and that’s it. One-to-one on TV. You make your point and I’ll refute you... Or if you like, take a sharp knife, metaphorically, and I’ll take a sharp knife of similar size; let’s meet. Once this is understood, it’s amazing how reasonable the argument can become...”

In this, as in all arguments in Singapore, Mr Lee has the last word. Outside Singapore, however, it is still possible to point out that under his rule “authoritarian democracy” has come to mean totalitarian control. What he touts as Singapore’s political innovation is in fact merely a sophisticated refinement of this century’s political invention: the totalitarian state.

The writer teaches in the foreign policy programme at the Johns Hopkins University’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. In the 1994-95 academic year, he was a visiting Fulbright fellow in the political science department at the National University of Singapore.

City of the Future: What America Can Learn From Post-Liberal Singapore By Nathan Gardels

The Washington Post

11 February 1996, Final Edition

Fashionable though it may be to vilify Singapore as just one more historically outmoded dictatorship, a case can be made that it ought to be extolled as a model for the future when the center of gravity of human civilization shifts to Asia. Probably no place on the planet is as prepared to enter the 21st century as this orderly high-tech, middle-class, multiculturally tolerant -- but post-liberal -- city-state.

By the middle of the next century, Singapore's far-sighted (and highly paid) governing class will be remembered as one of the first to recognize that the small size of a city-state, once thought to be a disadvantage, is the most efficient scale for any stable polity in a perpetually shifting global economy.

As Singapore's young and impressive minister of information and the arts, George Yeo, says, "The information revolution will not dissolve the world into an amorphous mass of weakened political entities, but transform it into more efficient units of power -- crossroads cities like the big city-states in Europe or in China before the age of empire."

Singapore's governing class will also be remembered as among the first to see that nurturing the "cultural infrastructure" is every bit as important to the survival of a community as its physical infrastructure: that cultural self-determination for their small swatch of destiny is a post-modern virtue, that, indeed, it is the right of a community not to surrender supinely to whatever the entertainers, newsroom editors, executives and marketing wizards of the great Western media empires think is best for them.

Thus Singapore's leaders have not only built an air-tropolis and container port that are among the most advanced in the world, they are also hard at work wiring their society into cyberspace as a matter of policy. (Singapore has its own home page on the Worldwide Web and a program to ensure that all high school graduates have the skills to navigate the Net). At the same time, however, they are making a point of standing up to an "anything goes" world of information flows.

Lee Kuan Yew, still the eminence behind power in Singapore, made the point passionately during a long conversation last fall at Istana, the former British governor's residence in Singapore: "Good governance, even today, requires a balance between competing claims by upholding fundamental truths: that there is right and wrong, good and evil . . . . If everyone gets pornography on a satellite dish the size of a saucer, then governments around the world will have to do something about it, or we will destroy our young and with them human civilization."

This explicit willingness to meddle in the media has rankled the West no end and tarnished Singapore's reputation. New York Times columnist William Safire has made a regular practice of trashing the tyranny he sees in Singapore. Microsoft's Bill Gates told me after a visit to Singapore that "they want to have their cake and eat it too" -- they want cyberspace and control -- but "no place is an island anymore."

But there is another perspective. Is it really so heretical to suggest in the wake of the O.J. media circus, Calvin Klein's proto-porn teen ads, hyperviolent films, gangsta rap and the descent of the mainstream press into tabloidism that the Singapore authorities are not behind the times, but ahead of them?

Is it so outrageous to believe that those societies that ac monitor what their children are exposed to and how it affects them, that have no qualms about drawing the line between what is appropriate and inappropriate, are going to hang together better in the social squalls ahead than those that don't?

Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that the Western attitude that has all but cast away the notion of appropriate social authority might be outmoded. After all, the key problem of Western civilization now is not the absence of tolerance, it is how to cope with so much freedom. Anyone who watches Jerry Springer, Ricki Lake or Sally Jessy Raphael has to know in their gut that the issue of our time is no longer which limits to erase, but where to draw the boundaries. Smelling political opportunity, even Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are onto this issue.

It is this context that makes Singapore's leaders post-liberal rather than merely reactionary authoritarians. Their stance arises not so much out of fear of what liberalism might mean to their hold on power but from the demonstrated failures of the permissive society carried to extremes. In America they have seen what for most of the postwar era was touted as the future, and it doesn't work.

I asked Lee if he agreed with Zbigniew Brzezinski's worry that "America's own cultural self-corruption -- its permissive cornucopia -- may undercut American's capacity, not just to sustain its position in the world as a political leader, but even as a systemic model for others."

"That has already happened," Lee responded. "The ideas of individual supremacy and the right to free expression, when carried to excess, have not worked. They have made it difficult to keep American society cohesive. Asia can see it is not working. Those who want a wholesome society where young girls and old ladies can walk in the streets at night, where the young are not preyed upon by drug peddlers, will not follow the American model." In other words, extremism in the name of liberty is a vice.

As always in our conversations, however, Lee was careful to praise America's innovative edge -- the genius of innovation and the ability to recover manufacturing productivity in the face of Japanese auto competition. But isn't that innovation and capacity for initiative linked to the very unfettered freedom he so condemns, I asked?

Not so, says the senior minister in a revealing insight that echoes those who have argued that America went wrong with the extremism of the "rights revolution" of the '60s and '70s. Lee similarly argues that when the lifestyle experiments of the cultural avant-garde are democratized, society subverts itself.

"The top 3 to 5 percent of a society can handle this free-for-all, this clash of ideas," he says. "If you do this with the whole mass . . . you'll have a mess. In this vein, I say, let them have the Internet. How many Singaporeans will be exposed to all these ideas, including some crazy ones, which we hope they won't absorb? Five percent? Okay. That is intellectual stimulation that can provide an edge for society as a whole. But to have, day to day, images of violence and raw sex on the picture tube, the whole society exposed to it, it will ruin a whole community."

Neither Lee nor Yeo, however, has any illusions that censorship can be effective. Rather, as Yeo put it, "censorship is a symbolic act, an affirmation to young and old alike of the values held by a community."

But ought this kind of power be in the hands of the state?

"What is the power of the state in local Singapore, a city-state with less than three million people?" asks Yeo in response. It is not, after all, a Leviathan like the old Soviet empire or even the French state or the American federal state. "We are really what in America is a local community. What we do is not so different from the people of Omaha or some other community saying, "We don't want the Playboy channel to play here because it is offensive and contrary to what we believe in."

Fair enough, but in the name of a wholesome and trusting society the Singapore government never hesitates to drag the Economist, the International Herald Tribune (which is co-owned by The Washington Post) -- or even the local Business Times to court for libel or for publishing leaked information. Isn't there a chilling effect, I asked, that will prevent the press from playing its critical check-and-balance role on corruption, nepotism or the manipulation of government information?

"If this were the case in Singapore," Yeo answers not wholly convincingly, "we would be destroying ourselves . . . . We are a nation of arbitrageurs. We can't afford to be a nanosecond behind Tokyo, London or New York. For us to try to limit information to a banker, a trader or a journalist would sound the death knell for Singapore. It would be contrary to our entire economic strategy."

Whatever one's doubts, this balancing act of good governance that guards the integrity of the cultural infrastructure in an efficient city-state of manageable administrative scale has been highly successful.

Anyone arriving in Singapore from the poverty and chaos of Calcutta or even Bangkok will readily acknowledge that it is a social model that works. Though it can be seen as one huge, immaculate shopping mall that is comparatively boring on the evening entertainment front, it is undeniably a very decent place. Indeed, the indices of social decency in this island nation of just under 3 million people are a reverse mirror image of the indices of American social decay.

Drugs are nonexistent as a result of one of the toughest policies in the world. On your immigration card you cannot miss the bold warning in red ink that drug smuggling carries a mandatory penalty of death. The boulevards, landscaped with palms and orchids, are spotless. Graffiti, penalized by caning as we know from the Michael Fay case, is nonexistent. Famously, women can safely walk the street alone, late and in the dark.

The standard of living in Singapore is as high as in many European countries, and more egalitarian. Fifteen years ago, the average income of the top 20 percent was 14.4 times that of the bottom 20 percent; by 1994, it was only 10.5 times as great. In that same period, the average income of the top 20 percent fell 3 percent while the average income of the middle 60 percent rose more than 4 percent. Savings rates are as high as they get in any society.

Chinese (who dominate ethnically) and Malays, Hindus and Muslims live and work together side by side as harmoniously as anywhere else. English is the dominant language to reach the outside world. Mandarin the inside. English is the language of the important newspapers; Mandarin the language of the most popular television channel. There are also Hindi and Malay TV stations.

Any businessman will tell you that Singapore is one of the few places in Asia where you can trust the rule of law not to be wholly corrupted. In a region where the notoriously blurry line between connections (guanxi) and corruption pervades all commerce, Singapore stands out. Late last year Fortune magazine named Singapore the best place in the world to do business.

At a time when so many societies are decaying or growing out of control, Singapore is going to make it. It is a place where I would feel comfortable raising my children but, admittedly, would hesitate to live as an adult. That I, like so many others, sometimes arrive at just the opposite conclusion about the United States assures that the Singapore model will continue to resonate as a critique of permissive societies run amok well into the next century.

Nathan Gardels is editor of New Perspectives Quarterly and the Global Viewpoint service of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate. His forthcoming book of essays and interviews is entitled "At Century's End: Great Minds Reflect on Our Times."

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Summary

The Communist Manifesto reflects an attempt to explain the goals of Communism, as well as the theory underlying this movement. It argues that class struggles, or the exploitation of one class by another, are the motivating force behind all historical developments. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. However, eventually these relationships cease to be compatible with the developing forces of production. At this point, a revolution occurs and a new class emerges as the ruling one. This process represents the "march of history" as driven by larger economic forces.

Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, the productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this exploitative relationship. Thus, the proletariat will lead a revolution. However, this revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, by the nature of their class, the members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, when they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, and classes themselves will disappear.

The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, and that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, and will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, a revolution will be required.

The Communist Manifesto has four sections. In the first section, it discusses the Communists' theory of history and the relationship between proletarians and bourgeoisie. The second section explains the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. The third section addresses the flaws in other, previous socialist literature. The final section discusses the relationship between the Communists and other parties.

Context

In 1847, a group of radical workers called the "Communist League" met in London. They commissioned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who had recently become members, to write a manifesto on their behalf, soon known as the Communist Manifesto. Marx was the principle author, with Engels editing and assisting. The Communist Manifesto was originally published in London in 1848. Of all the documents of modern socialism, it is the most widely read and the most influential. It is the systematic statement of the philosophy that has come to be known as Marxism.

Marx (1818-1883) was a German philosopher, economist and sociologist, as well as a political revolutionary. He met Engels (1820-1895) when he moved to Paris after 1843, and they worked together on several essays. Marx and Engels are best known for their revolutionary writings about Communism. One of Marx's primary intellectual influences was the work of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel's theory presents history as a process in which the world becomes conscious of itself as spirit. Marx took this idea and furthered it, arguing that as man becomes conscious of himself as spirit, the material world causes him to feel increasingly alienated from himself. Escape from this alienation requires a revolution.

Marx and Engels were not simply content with theorizing about revolution in the abstract, however. They thought that theory was only useful insofar as it promotes social change, clarifying the proper means and ends of revolution; they were thus not only authors, but activists, and believed that by theorizing they were actively influencing history. The Communist Manifesto can be understood as one attempt to influence history by spreading information about the communist movement.

Marx's theory should be understood in the context of the hardships suffered by 19th-century workers in England, France and Germany. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries created a seemingly permanent underclass of workers, many of whom lived in poverty under terrible working conditions and with little political representation. The Communist Manifesto was written on the eve of the Revolution of 1848 in Germany. The failure of this worker and student-led revolution caused Marx to later revise some of the arguments and predictions that appear in the Communist Manifesto. However, the general structure of Marx's original arguments, as well as its revolutionary tone, remained unchanged.

Terms

Bourgeoisie - Composing the class of modern Capitalists, the bourgeoisie are the employers of wage laborers, and the owners of the means of production.

Means of production - The means of production include not only the physical instruments of production (tools, machines, etc.), but also the methods of working (skills, forms of cooperation, division of labor, etc.), and knowledge that can be applied to production (science, etc.).

Mode of production - The economic structure of society that defines people's mode of living. It consists of the means of production as well as the relations of production.

Proletariat - The class of modern wage-laborers. They do not have their own means of production, and therefore they must sell their own labor in order to survive.

Relations of production - The necessary relations between people as required for a certain form of material production. The relations of production refer to the distribution of the means of production, the forms of possession (collective and individual private property), and the distribution of the product.

Introduction and Section 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians (Part 1)

Summary

The Manifesto begins by announcing, "A spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism." All of the European powers have allied themselves against Communism, frequently demonizing its ideas. Therefore, the Communists have assembled in London and written this Manifesto in order to make public their views, aims and tendencies, and to dispel the maliciously implanted misconceptions.

The Manifesto begins by addressing the issue of class antagonism. Marx writes, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Throughout history we see the oppressor and oppressed in constant opposition to each other. This fight is sometimes hidden and sometimes open. However, each time the fight ends in either a revolutionary reconstruction of society or in the classes' common ruin.

In earlier ages, we saw society arranged into complicated class structures. For example, in medieval times there were feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices and serfs. Modern bourgeois society sprouted from the ruins of feudal society. This society has class antagonisms as well, but it is also unique: class antagonisms have become simplified, as society increasingly splits into two rival camps--Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

The Manifesto then shows how the modern bourgeoisie is the product of several revolutions in the mode of production and of exchange. The development of the bourgeoisie began in the earliest towns, and gained momentum with the Age of Exploration. Feudal guilds couldn't provide for increasing markets, and the manufacturing middle class took its place. However, markets kept growing and demand kept increasing, and manufacture couldn't keep up. This led to the Industrial Revolution. Manufacture was replaced by "Modern Industry," and the industrial middle class was replaced by "industrial millionaires," the modern bourgeois. With these developments, the bourgeoisie have become powerful, and have pushed medieval classes into the background. The development of the bourgeoisie as a class was accompanied by a series of political developments. With the development of Modern Industry and the world-market, the bourgeoisie has gained exclusive political sway. The State serves solely the bourgeoisie's interests.

Historically, the bourgeoisie has played a quite revolutionary role. Whenever it has gained power, it has put to an end all "feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations." It has eliminated the relationships that bound people to their superiors, and now all remaining relations between men are characterized by self-interest alone. Religious fervor, chivalry and sentimentalism have all been sacrificed. Personal worth is now measured by exchange value, and the only freedom is that of Free Trade. Thus, exploitation that used to be veiled by religious and political "illusions" is now direct, brutal and blatant. The bourgeoisie has changed all occupations into wage-laboring professions, even those that were previously honored, such as that of the doctor. Similarly, family relations have lost their veil of sentimentality and have been reduced to pure money relations.

In the past, industrial classes required the conservation of old modes of production in order to survive. The bourgeoisie are unique in that they cannot continue to exist without revolutionizing the instruments of production. This implies revolutionizing the relations of production, and with it, all of the relations in society. Thus, the unique uncertainties and disturbances of the modern age have forced Man to face his real condition in life, and his true relations with others.

Because the bourgeoisie needs a constantly expanding market, it settles and establishes connections all over the globe. Production and consumption have taken on a cosmopolitan character in every country. This is true both for materials and for intellectual production, as national sovereignty and isolationism becomes less and less possible to sustain. The bourgeoisie draws even the most barbaric nations into civilization and compels all nations to adopt its mode of production. It "creates a world after its own image." All become dependent on the bourgeoisie. It has also increased political centralization.

Thus, we see that the means of production and of exchange, which serve as the basis of the bourgeoisie, originated in feudal society. At a certain stage, however, the feudal relations ceased to be compatible with the developing productive forces. Thus the "fetters" of the feudal system had to be "burst asunder," and they were. Free competition replaced the old system, and the bourgeoisie rose to power.

Marx then says that a similar movement underway at the present moment. Modern bourgeois society is in the process of turning on itself. Modern productive forces are revolting against the modern conditions of production. Commercial crises, due, ironically, to over-production, are threatening the existence of bourgeois society. Productive forces are now fettered by bourgeois society, and these crises represent this tension. Yet in attempting to remedy these crises, the bourgeoisie simply cause new and more extensive crises to emerge, and diminish their ability to prevent future ones. Thus, the weapons by which the bourgeoisie overcame feudalism are now being turned on the bourgeoisie themselves.

Commentary

The Communist Manifesto opens with a statement of its purpose, to publicize the views, aims and tendencies of the Communists. As such it is a document intended to be read by the public, and it is meant to be easily grasped by a general audience. It is also meant to be a broad description of what Communism is, both as a theory and as a political movement.

In this first section, Marx already introduces several of the key ideas of his theory. One main idea is that all of history until now is the story of a series of class struggles. Underlying all of history, then, is this fundamental economic theme. The most important concept being discussed here is the concept that each society has a characteristic economic structure. This structure breeds different classes, which are in conflict as they oppress or are oppressed by each other. However, this situation is not permanent. As history "marches" on, eventually the means of production cease to be compatible with the class structure as-is. Instead, the structure begins to impede the development of productive forces. At this point, the existing structure must be destroyed. This explains the emergence of the bourgeoisie out of feudalism. It will also explain the eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie. Marx believes that all of history should be understood in this way--as the process in which classes realign themselves in compliance with changing means of production.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this theory of history is what it does not deem important. In Marx's theory, history is shaped by economic relations alone. Elements such as religion, culture, ideology, and even the individual human being, play a very little role. Rather, history moves according to impersonal forces, and its general direction is inevitable.

Marx believes that this type of history will not go on forever, however. The Manifesto will later argue that the modern class conflict is the final class conflict; the end of this conflict will mark the end of all class relations. This section begins to suggest why this might be, positing some of the ways in which the modern era is unique. First, class antagonisms have been simplified, as two opposing classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, emerge. Secondly, while exploitative relationships were previously hidden behind things like ideology, now the veil has been lifted and everything is seen in terms of self- interest. Thirdly, in order for the bourgeoisie to continue to exist, they must continually revolutionize the instruments of production. This leaves social relations in an unprecedentedly unstable state.

Section 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians (Part 2)

Summary

After examining the nature and history of the bourgeoisie, the Manifesto now turns to the proletariat. As the bourgeoisie developed, so did the proletariat, and it is the proletariat who will eventually destroy the bourgeoisie. The proletarians live only as long as they can find work, and they can find work only as long as their labor increases capital. They are a commodity, and are vulnerable to all the fluctuations of the market. Due to the development of machines and the division of labor, the proletarian's work has lost all "charm;" the proletarian is simply an appendage of a machine. Furthermore, as his work becomes more repulsive, his wage only decreases. Marx describes the worker as a soldier, and as a slave. Distinctions of age and sex are becoming less important as all people are simply instruments of labor. Furthermore, no sooner does the worker get his wages from his exploitative boss, then he is exploited by other bourgeoisie, such as his landlord.

The lower strata of the middle class, such as tradespeople, gradually sink into the proletariat. This is due to the fact that they lack sufficient capital, and the fact that technology has rendered their specialized skills no longer useful.

The Manifesto then describes the past history of the proletariat. As soon as this class was created it began to struggle with the bourgeoisie. This struggle originally involved the individual laborer, and later groups of workers, rebelling against the bourgeois that directly exploited them. These workers hoped to revive the medieval status of the worker. At this point, the workers were still disorganized, divided by geography and by competition with one another. Furthermore, when they did form unions, they were under the influence of the bourgeois, and actually served to further the objectives of the bourgeoisie.

However, with the modern development of industry, the proletariat increased in number, and became stronger and more concentrated. Furthermore, distinctions among laborers began to dissolve, as all shared equally low wages and equally unsure livelihoods. At this point, workers began to form trade unions and other associations, a process in which they are still engaged at the time of the Manifesto's writing. The proletariat is further helped in its unification by the increased means of communication made possible by modern industry, allowing for the struggles to take on national character. While the organization of the proletariat into a class is continually destroyed by competition among workers, each time it rises again stronger. Furthermore, as other classes try to use the proletarians to forward political their own ends, they give them tools to fight the bourgeoisie.

Marx explains that the only class today that is really revolutionary is the proletariat. All of the other classes that fight the bourgeoisie--such as the shopkeeper--are conservative, fighting to preserve their existence. Among the proletariat, however, the Old Society is already past preservation. "Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."

Historically, the proletariat are also unique. In the past, when a class got the upper hand, it tried to subject all of society to its own mode of appropriation. However, the proletariat lack any property of their own to retain or expand. Rather, they must destroy all ways of securing private property at all. Another unique characteristic of the proletariat is that, while past movements were started by minorities, the proletariats are a vast majority, and are acting in the interest of that majority.

The proletarians' struggle is first and foremost a national struggle. Marx writes that he has traced the proletariat's development through a veiled civil war, up to the point of open revolution and the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Until now, every society has been based on class oppression. In order for a class to be able to be oppressed, however, its slavish existence must be sustainable, held steady: in contrast, laborers in modern industrial society are continually suffering a deterioration of their status; they become poorer and poorer. The bourgeoisie are thus unfit to rule, because they cannot guarantee "an existence to its slave within its slavery." Thus, with the development of Modern Industry, the bourgeoisie produces "its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Commentary

Marx spends a significant portion of this section discussing the plight of the modern laborer. He argues that the worker is commodified, and seen as part of the machinery. He matters only in so far as he produces, and he does not have control over the fruits of his labor. The story of the laborer is a story of flagrant exploitation, and has had great resonance with many of Marx's readers.

Marx also presents ways in which the proletariat are a unique class. They are connected by improved communication, and by the miserable existence they share in common. They are also in the majority in society, and their numbers are increasing. The most significant trait of the proletariat, however, is that they have nothing to lose. By the nature of being proletarians, they have no power or privileges they must defend. Rather, to help themselves they must destroy the entire system. Because of this, when they have their revolution, they will destroy the entire system of class exploitation, including all private property. Thus, the stage of history that Marx is describing is the last stage. However, it is important to understand that this stage is only possible because of all the other stages that came before it. The proletariat had to be ready for revolution.

Section 2, Proletarians and Communists

Summary

The Manifesto then discusses the relationship of the Communists to the proletarians. The immediate aim of the Communists is the "formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat." The Communists' theory simply describes a historical movement underway at this very moment. This includes the abolition of private property.

Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out, laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Rather, the "property" or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social--not a personal--power. Changing it into common property does not abolish property as a right, but merely changes its social character, by eliminating its class character. In a Communist society, then, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer, not for the sake of producing bourgeois-controlled property. This goal of communism challenges bourgeois freedom, and this is why the bourgeois condemn the Communist philosophy. Marx writes, "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." Despite what the bourgeois claim, Communism doesn't keep people from appropriating the products of labor. Rather, it keeps them from subjugating others in the process of this appropriation.

The Manifesto then addresses some objections to Communism. Many dissenters maintain that no one will work if private property is abolished. However, by this logic, bourgeois society should have been overcome with laziness long ago. In reality, it is presently the case that those who work don't acquire anything, and those who acquire things don't work. Other opponents hold that Communism will destroy all intellectual products. However, this reflects a bourgeois misunderstanding. The disappearance of "class culture" is not the same thing as the disappearance of all culture.

Marx moves to the arguments against the "infamous" Communist proposal of abolishing the family. He says the modern family is based on capital and private gain. Thus he writes, the Communists "plead guilty" to wanting to do away with present familial relations, in that they want to stop the exploitation of children by their parents. Similarly, they do not want to altogether abolish the education of children, but simply to free it from the control of the ruling class. Marx complains that the bourgeois "clap-trap" about family and education is particularly "disgusting" as Industry increasingly destroys the family ties of the proletarians; thus it renders family and education as means for the transformation of children into articles of commerce.

Communists are also criticized for their desire to abolish country and nationality. Marx replies that workingmen have no country; and we can't take from them what they don't have. National differences and antagonisms lose significance as industrialization increasingly standardizes life.

Marx then says that those charges against Communism based on religion, philosophy, or ideology "are not deserving of serious examination." Man's consciousness changes with the conditions of his material existence. "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." In response to the claim that there are certain universal ideas, such as that of Justice, that have transcended the vicissitudes of history, Marx replies that this universality is only an apparent one, reflecting an overriding history of exploitation and class antagonism. The Communist revolution is a radical rupture in traditional property relations. It should be no surprise that it accompanied by radical changes in traditional ideas.

We see then that the first step in the working class' revolution is to make the proletariat the ruling class. It will use its political power to seize all capital from the bourgeoisie and to centralize all instruments of production under the auspices of the State. Of course, in the beginning this will not be possible without "despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production." Probable steps in the revolution will include: the abolition of ownership of land; the institution of a heavy progressive or graduated income tax; the abolition of all inheritance rights; the confiscation of emigrants' and rebels' property, making all people liable to labor; State centralization of credit; State centralization of communication and transportation; State appropriation of factories, the gradual combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries, the elimination of the distinctions between town and country, and the establishment of free education for children.

When class distinctions have disappeared, public power will lose its political character. This is because political power is nothing more than "the organized power of one class for oppressing another." When the proletariat eliminate the old conditions for production, they will render class antagonism impossible, and thereby eliminate their own class supremacy. Bourgeois society will be replaced by an "association" in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Commentary

One of Marx's most interesting claims in this section is that the ideas of religion and philosophy are actually rooted in people's material existence; particular ideas are only the results of certain relationships of production. The most enduring or prevailing ideas are simply those that serve the interests of the ruling class. Thus, the ruling class makes the rules that structure society, and supports those ideas that forward its own ends. For example, the bourgeoisie glorify property rights because they are the ones in society with property.

This is also the section where Marx gives a sense of what he thinks the revolution will be like. The workers become the rulers, and work to eliminate private property. It is important to consider in which instances the Manifesto is simply trying to describe a historical process, and in which instances it is also advocating particular methods and goals: Communism understands history to be an unchangeable force, but also as leading to a morally desirable outcome. The question thus arises, What is the Communist's role in the historical process? If the revolution is an inevitable force of history, we might even question why the Communist Manifesto is necessary.

Finally, this section is interesting because it exhibits Marx's techniques of responding to criticisms. Marx is harsh and often quite sarcastic about the critiques of Communism. Consider whether his approach is rhetorically effective. Would he be more convincing if he took a more serious tone about the critiques of Communism? Would the Manifesto retain its "revolutionary" character if he did change his tone?

Section 3, Socialist and Communist Literature

Summary

In this section, Marx presents and critiques three subsets of Socialist and Communist literature. The first subset is Reactionary Socialism. Reactionary Socialists include the Feudal Socialists, the Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, and the German, or "True" Socialists; all of these groups fight against the rise of the bourgeoisie and modern Industry, without realizing the historical process the bourgeoisie represent. Feudal Socialists were French and English aristocrats who wrote against modern bourgeois society. However, their chief complaint about the bourgeois was that it creates a revolutionary proletariat that will uproot the old order of society. Thus, they objected to the bourgeoisie because they were a threat to their way of life. The Petty- Bourgeois Socialists were a class that saw it would eventually lose its separate status and become part of the proletariat. Marx concedes that the Petty- Bourgeois publications successfully showed the contradictions of the conditions of modern production. However, their suggested alternatives to this contradictory system were either to restore the old means of production and exchange, or to push the modern means of production and exchange into the framework of old property relations. Thus, this socialism is "reactionary and Utopian" and can't accept the facts of history. Third there is German, or "True" Socialism. These German thinkers adopted some French socialist and Communist ideas, without realizing that Germany did not share the same social conditions as France. As contemplated by the German thinkers, the French ideas lost all practical significance and were "emasculated." These socialists supported the aristocracy and feudal institutions against the rising bourgeoisie, forgetting that the rise of the bourgeoisie is a necessary historical step. The "true" socialists support the interests of the petty- bourgeoisie, and thus support the status quo. They even reject class struggles. Marx claims that almost all of the so-called Communist and Socialist literature in Germany at this time are in fact of this character.

The second subset of Socialism is Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism. This subset reflects the desires of a segment of the bourgeois to redress social grievances, in order to guarantee the continued existence of bourgeois society. Followers of this idea include "economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, [and] hole-and-corner reformers of every kind." They want the advantages of the social conditions generated by Modern Industry, without the struggles and dangers that necessarily accompany them. "They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat." These bourgeoisie believe that the best society is the society in which they have power; they want the proletariat to keep its weak role, but to stop hating the dominant bourgeoisie. A second form of this kind of Socialism recognizes the fact that only changes in economic relations could help the proletariat. However, the upholders of this kind of socialism do not accept that such changes necessarily entail a destruction of the relations of production. Rather, they wish to make administrative reforms, which simply decrease the cost and amount of administrative work for the bourgeois government.

The third subset is Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. This subset originated with the first attempts of the proletariat to achieve their own ends. The attempts were reactionary, and the proletariat had not yet reached the maturity and economic conditions necessary for emancipation. These socialists therefore looked for new social laws to create the material conditions necessary to free the proletariat. Their writings are important because they attacked every principle of existing society, and are thus useful for enlightening the working class. However, they are of a Utopian character: although their vision did reflect authentic proletariat "yearnings" to reconstruct society, it was ultimately a "fantastic" vision, providing no basis for practical action. Thus the Critical-Utopian Socialists become less significant as the modern class struggle takes shape; lacking practical significance, their "fantastic" attacks lose theoretical justification. Thus, while the founders were in many ways revolutionaries, their followers are mere reactionaries. They oppose political action by the proletariat.

Commentary

This section is principally a review of other Socialist thinkers. Marx argues that each approach fails because it misses out on a key component of Communist theory. The Reactionaries fail to realize that the inevitability of the bourgeoisie's rise, and of their eventual fall at the hands of the proletariat. The Conservative Socialists, similarly, fail to see the inevitability of class antagonism, and of the destruction of the bourgeoisie. The Critical-Utopian Socialists fail to understand that social change must occur in revolutions, and not by pure dreaming or words.

For a modern reader, Marx's discussion of the second subgroup perhaps deserves the most consideration. The Conservative Socialism that Marx condemns is precisely the attitude embraced by countries like the United States toward the plight of workers. Welfare, Social Security and a minimum wage are all measures that Marx would dismiss as attempts to preserve the capitalist system by making the situation of the proletariat tolerable. It is worth considering, then, whether Marx's critique is convincing. Basically, Marx seems to argue that these "reforms" are actually done in the interests of the bourgeois, in order to placate the proletariat and make them accept their social role. Marx believes that this form of Socialism is misguided; he contends that the only way to really address the grievances of the proletariat is through a restructuring of economic and social relations. This is a revolutionary act; the suggested reforms of Conservative Socialists are merely palliative. How does Marx's critique hold up to states such as the U.S. or Western European nations--nations that have instituted such "Conservative Socialist" programs? Is Marx correct in stating that these reforms serve the interests of the ruling capitalists, and not the workers? Looking back from the present, and having thus seen "Conservative Socialism" in action, does historical evidence still support Marx's claims of the inevitability of a proletariat uprising? Does it support the desirability of such an uprising?

Section 4, Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

Summary

The Manifesto concludes with a discussion about the role of the Communists as they work with other parties. The Communists fight for the immediate aims of workers, but always in the context of the entire Communist movement. Thus, they work with those political parties that will forward the ends of Communism, even if it involves working with the bourgeoisie. However, they never stop trying to instill in the working class a recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and to help them gain the weapons to eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Thus, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by forcibly overthrowing all existing social conditions. The Manifesto ends with this rallying cry: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

Commentary

This final section reveals the political agenda of the Communists. Their final goal is always a proletariat revolution and the abolition of private property and class antagonism. Because they believe that history must go through a set of stages, however, this may mean sometimes supporting the bourgeoisie, in order to eventually make a workers' revolution possible. While the Communists have a strong theoretical foundation, integrating observations and predictions, they are also advocating those predictions, and attempting to accelerate their realization. Thus, they do not simply declare that workers shall one day unite. Rather, they call on workers to unite, promising them freedom and a better world. How separable are the political and theoretical messages of the Communists? Is the Communists' theory of history an essential part of its revolutionary message? Consider from a rhetorical perspective how the Communist cause might be helped or harmed by the claim that revolution is inevitable.