One of the more interesting intellectual disputes we see in modern economics, and especially the explanation of globalisation, is the 1 that opposes the explanation of convergence of the concept of multipolarity. Convergence is simply a explanation of modernisation that was created in the 1960s, according to which, as a consequence of social improvement and technological progress, various societies and economies are gradually becoming similar, especially those previously located at a different level of development. In turn, the rule of pluralism and diversity is behind the multipolar concept, which says that no similarity occurs due to the fact that different cultures and different identities are behind different economies and societies.
Personally, I am a passionate supporter of the second approach, which I don't think I'm peculiarly original. Similarly, many contemporary conservatives, identityaries, nationalists, but besides regionalists and local authorities attached to the identity diversity of their large and tiny homelands. On the another hand, by looking at the explanation of unification in the Western world, there are inactive many supporters, and it can be said that its impact is increasing. Just callback the function of the rule of socio-economic cohesion in EU legislation. The universal unification of differences through a unified waltz is inactive a rebirth of utopia (temptation), and a model to follow is simply a happy demoliberal Western society, and especially American society. The movie “Happy fresh York” by Janusz Zaorski is reminiscent of the feature of the movie “Happy fresh York”, in which “Azbest” by Cezary Cazura is radiated, “Azbest” in a monologue in front of the camera.
However, the roots of the unifying trend were noble. Convergence has its sources in Western universalism, proclaiming that the nature of all people is the same. It can be found in Western Greek philosophy, and especially in Christian religion, hence it was the basis of Christian missions and conversion of Gentiles, and in modern times – the spread of ideas of enlightenment, freedom, religion in advancement and idolatry in its spirit of human rights all over the world. It was undoubtedly intended to liberate the culture oppressed over centuries, just as present it wants to escape from the Russian boot of Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Georgians. However, the effects of these noble ideas were no longer as large as 1 might think, paradoxically leading to fresh forms of colonialism and submission, let alone more drastic forms of slavery. From then on, a same - centered Western man described himself as a grateful barbarian, and he was determined to aid them, to civilize them by bringing the kagans of progress, to break with dark superstitions and become like him. It is hard not to see in the above logic shoes and the treatment of others.
In this respect small has changed to modern times, only that economical subordination has emerged in place of political subordination. Of course, no of this is happening. Western liberalism treats society impersonally and is to warrant equal rights for all. However, the propensity to unify and equalize differences remains and even increases. They all have akin needs and are guided by the rule of rational benefit (homo oeconomicus), regardless of human identity, belonging to different cultures or social classes. This has become the basis of Western legislation, universalist, rationalist and positive.
On this basis, Western experts in the 1980s coined the definition of a Washington consensus following the TINA rule (introduced into economics by Margaret Thatcher) i.e. There Is No Alternative – 1 of the same economical patterns for all countries, regardless of social and cultural differences, a pattern based on the liberalisation of abroad trade, privatisation of the economy, deregulation of the market, attracting abroad investment, as capital is culturally and politically neutral, capital has no nationality. In this direction, advice from Western experts specified as Bill Gates and George Soros and the directives behind them were aimed at financial institutions specified as the IMF, BŚ or the U.S. Treasury Department, which made their credits and support for developing countries of Latin America, Asia and Central and east Europe dependent on ruthless application to the word-treated revealed advice.
Today we have no uncertainty that the effects have led to neo-colonial practices, exploitation and dissection, subordination of developing countries to American corporations, drainage of their economies or disindustrialisation, as confirmed by the effects of the Balcerowicz Plan in Poland, and another akin reforms implemented in post-socialist countries as well as in Latin America. To an even greater degree this dependence is confirmed by Russia's example. Attempts to implement democratic and free-market reforms by the Liberals of the Yelcin era led to the consolidation of Russian oligarchy in the economy, the appropriation of the nomenclature, the creation of deep-seated poverty, social fragmentation and the escape of capital, the effects of which on the Tsar's throne amounted to Vladimir Putin.
However, supporters of the economical superiority of the liberal model of capitalism in an era of intense globalisation did not lay down their weapons, and they were to be helped by cultural and intellectual reasons. I would like to urge a visit to any technological library to see what taboos of books have been issued in fresh years on the impact of culture on economics, in which the work of the crowds on representatives of liberal economics specified as Louis von Mises or Milton Friedman for their insensitivity to social affairs and values. The way was right, however, yet led to the kid being fired along with the bath. From the beginning, it was possible to sense any inconsistency of Western analysts (but besides their perverseness and dishonesty) who, on the 1 hand, avoided the gateway to cultural diversity of modern economics, on the another hand, insisted on the thesis that only a certain kind of culture, as Max Weber would say, based on Protestant work ethos, a strong rationality and nonsubjective legal strategy (the rule of double accounting), which defined the collective word "disenchantment of the world" (Entzauberung) may be the origin of the modernisation and improvement of capitalist relations. First they took a step forward and then they went back to the old place. Liberal pride triumphs again, and its consequence is the absurd division into better and worse cultures, more and little progressive.
Weber claimed that Catholicism hinders the improvement of the capitalist economy in the West, as do another religions specified as Confucianism and Buddhism in another parts of the world. Unless we are dealing with Catholicism here, due to the fact that the Polish reader surely knows the arguments of Weber's opponents about the simplifications committed by the German scientist, it is worth looking closely at the Western teachings about Confucian states. Well, Max Weber, and behind him, sociologists specified as Talcott Parsons and Etienne Balazs promoted thesis on the impossibility of modernizing China due to paternalistic cultural patterns and a conservative family-clan system, which is the origin of the rigidity and as a consequence of the failure of the political economical strategy of the mediate State. According to Parsons, Confucian ethics, with its emphasis on individual relationships and moral obligations towards circumstantial individuals (especially older people), was a immense contrast to the "universistic" ethics of the Western world. Interestingly, this was besides argued by any of the elites of the mediate State calling for a break with their own tradition and copying of Western patterns, and thus akin views persisted until the 1970s.
The economical success of Asian tigers gave emergence to the first doubts, although there was a dispute about whether success was a consequence of conventional cultures or the ability to turn distant from them and take on the invisible hand of the market. However, empirical data clearly demonstrated that Asian countries that fed their economies with American loans and followed the orders of the Washington Consensus did not make as much as those that followed their own improvement paths, following their native, supposedly irrational cultures. To the top extent, this dependence has been confirmed by the economical success of the mediate State, whose family-based relationships have proved to be a lasting contribution to improvement and innovation, alternatively than a burden as reported by Western experts. It turned out that it was Chinese minorities that had a immense impact on the economies of any Southeast Asian countries, specified as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia, being liable for their “economic wonders”. This is simply a very crucial thesis that makes a lasting contribution to reflection on desirable ways to break the neocolonial dependence of modern economies. And Asian countries, like few, know something about these dependencies due to the fact that for centuries they have been in passive submission to alien empires.
In addition to a strong tradition, another discrimination of Asian economies, mainly the Chinese Xiaoping era was the strong function of the national states and public intervention tools at their disposal, as opposed to assurance in the free play of request and supply forces to be passively subordinated. It is besides a legacy of hierarchical patterns of Confucianism. another Asian countries, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and India, have started to implement a akin strategy. Hence, the word Peking Consensus was coined, although the Chinese themselves denied the universalism of their model, claiming that in 2 different places the same prescription could not be applied.
The general conclusion that emerges from the above considerations concerns the legitimacy of the multipolar idea, not only in the fashionable geopolitical sense today, but besides in relation to the search for conditions for economical success of individual countries. There is no single prescription for success, and each case must be examined separately. Surely, however, intervention tools should be referred to alternatively than a waiting attitude. This is the nature of modern globalisation. Hence, the explanation of convergence, i.e. the likeness of the economical world, is simply a failure.
In turn, the economical consequences of Western cultural unification lead to fresh divisions, social divisions, and the deepening of neocolonial practices in the execution of large American corporations and their powers, although they are officially motivated by altruistic motives for helping those in need. In view of the above, it seems that the key to the economical success of countries that are meant to be independent, and present they are not yet, among another things, due to different historical circumstances lies in blind adaptation to supposedly nonsubjective external economical laws, but in the phenomenon of knowing their own culture and developing improvement tools.
Michael Graban
