【正文】 majorities opposed to the introduction of the Euro, but a powerful elite supports it, so that it moves forward. This undemocratic process, carried out within a democratic facade, is consistent with the distribution of benefits and costs of globalization, and the fact that globalization has been a tool serving elite interests. Globalization has also steadily weakened democracy, partly as a result of unplanned effects, but also because the containment of labor costs and scaling down of the welfare state has required the business minority to establish firm control of the state and remove its capacity to respond to the demands of the majority. The mix of deliberate and unplanned elements in globalization39。s population, live on under two dollars a day。 it pelled them to adapt austerity programs of tight money and budget cutbacks focusing heavily on social expenditures affecting the poor and ordinary citizens。 通過自由貿(mào)易，全球化有時(shí)候能夠產(chǎn)生巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，它協(xié)助處理了威脅社會進(jìn)步的處于末端的進(jìn)程和經(jīng)濟(jì)政治制度，并在各個(gè)水平層面上向著它所被承認(rèn)的那樣前進(jìn)。 9 作為一種意識形態(tài)，全球化所暗示的不僅是自由與多國合作，而且它還幫助人們認(rèn)識到自由貿(mào)易帶來的好處，以及勞動(dòng)分工所產(chǎn)生的比較優(yōu)勢，這被看做 是提高效率和生產(chǎn)力的表現(xiàn)。這可能有助于解釋經(jīng)濟(jì)合作組織成員國的總體生產(chǎn)率為何會從 19601973 年的 %跌至 19731995 年的 %，下降約 75%。不均等上升到七十年前的水平，就業(yè)不足，就業(yè)無保障，福利損失以及從事生產(chǎn)率低下行業(yè)的勞動(dòng)者，這類狀況都在增加。 全球化只有在精英們看來才是經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)意義上的成功 —— 忽略掉以上那些記錄不算的話。在其各個(gè)肆意攻擊的方面都可以找到包括主管故意和籌劃不足在內(nèi)的全球化的反民主的勢頭 。民主制度，根據(jù)多元理論學(xué)說，極為需要依賴于牢固的中間派，比如勞動(dòng)組織，他們能夠?yàn)榱俗约旱睦婀ぷ骱陀憙r(jià)還價(jià)。赫里蒂奇基金會的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者費(fèi)納文證明了企業(yè)資助策略和全球化智庫之間的聯(lián)系，比如幫助寶潔公司推銷肥皂 —— 信息飽和的市場會吞噬掉任何缺少資助的企業(yè)。默多克對英國選舉的影響，以及默多克和布萊爾的聯(lián)系都說明了這一點(diǎn)。這可以幫助解釋為什么有 一半或者更多的具有選舉資格的美國選民不再參加全國選舉。國 際貨幣基金組織正在亞洲從事著相同的事情。如前所述，全球化迄今為止一直是生產(chǎn)力的失敗，是社會災(zāi)難，是對穩(wěn)定的威脅。 制止這種反民主對經(jīng)濟(jì)的沖擊將是異常困難的，這不僅是因?yàn)樗氖芤嬲叩臋?quán)力強(qiáng)大，而且還因?yàn)樗x上的在民主結(jié)構(gòu)內(nèi)部的運(yùn)作和召集似是而非的爭斗辯論。喬姆斯基合著）、《市場的勝利》（ 1996 年）以及《全球媒體》（ 1997 年與羅伯特而要實(shí)現(xiàn)積極影響，該議程就需要對嚴(yán)格限制和落實(shí)跨國公司的責(zé)任，包括實(shí)行資本管制和支持其他的對于金 融投機(jī)的威懾。這使得眾多海外的收購者們成為了巨大威脅，欠發(fā)達(dá)國家將被整合進(jìn)入外國經(jīng)濟(jì)體系作為“分支經(jīng)濟(jì)體”，維持了政府的非獨(dú)立性和不發(fā)達(dá)的狀況，他們尤其難于抵御來自高度發(fā)達(dá)組織嚴(yán)密的新自由主義的攻擊以使自己的人民免受侵害。在這些協(xié)議當(dāng)中，有關(guān)于投資的更為積極的多方協(xié)議正在考慮，全球跨國公司不必?fù)?dān)負(fù)任何責(zé)任，誰也不能把這些責(zé)任強(qiáng)加給它們。歐洲貨幣聯(lián)盟的條件首先考慮到預(yù)算限制和控制通貨膨脹，在與新自由主義和公司的議程之間達(dá)成妥協(xié)。新全球化經(jīng)濟(jì)的代言人吹噓資本的能力，懲罰那些“不聽話”的政治家，事實(shí)上，現(xiàn)在是金錢資本在掌控一切。全球化之所以做到這些，部分地是由于上文中提到的，它對獨(dú)裁制度有特別的好感，二者臭味相投。新自由主義所主張并推動(dòng)的理念，是市場能夠做到一切，政府則是巨大的負(fù)擔(dān)和威脅，放松管制和私有化是卓有成效的和不可避免的。 資 本在國外的實(shí)際運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)以及外部選擇在國內(nèi)討價(jià)還價(jià)的使用都削弱了勞動(dòng)力。在美國，民意調(diào)查顯示盡管宣傳攻勢不減，一般民眾仍然反對加入北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定，但是大部分媒體都支持美國政府的決定，這一決議最終獲得通過。 占世界人口百分之二十的極富群體和赤貧群體之間的收入差距由 1960 年的 30:1 上升到 1995 年的 82:1，第三世界的許多情況更為惡化， 70 多個(gè)國家的人均收入在過去二十年里直 線下降；約三十億人 —— 占世界人口的一半 —— 生活在每天不足兩美元的條件下；約八億人營養(yǎng)不良。因?yàn)槿蚧谔岣呃实耐瑫r(shí)也幫助降低了工資水平，只有 約 5%的家庭能夠享受到生產(chǎn)率降低帶來的收益，這就使得精英群體的收入和證券市場的市值獲得較快的增長。即使暫時(shí)忽略其分配效應(yīng)，全球化也依舊呈現(xiàn)出產(chǎn)量、生產(chǎn)率和投資增長的大幅下降這一基本特征。 像自由貿(mào)易一樣，全球化擁有道德的光環(huán)。 any not asserted now are left to the private sector and to the superior class of citizens. In these agreements, also, and even more aggressively in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment now under consideration, the global TNCs have no responsibilities and none can be imposed on them. They can fire people, abandon munities, fatally damage the environment, push local panies out of business, and purvey cultural trash at their full discretion. They can or will be able to sue governments, and disagreements are to be settled by unelected panels outside the control of democratic governments. A third characteristic of the new agreements and IMFWorld Bank actions is that they rest not only on neoliberal theory but on a false reading of recent experience and economic history. As noted earlier, globalization so far has been a productivity failure, a social disaster, and a threat to stability. The claim of its proponents that free trade is the route to economic growth is also confuted by longer historic experience: no country, past or present, has taken off into sustained economic growth and moved from economic backwardness to modernity without largescale government protection and subsidization of infant industries and other modes of insulation from domination by powerful outsiders. This includes Great Britain, the United States, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, all highly protectionist in the earlier takeoff phases of their growth process. The governments and institutions bargaining on behalf of the TNCs today, through the IMF, World Bank, WTO and NAFTA, have been able to remove these modes of protection from less developed countries. This threatens them with extensive takeovers from abroad, thoroughgoing integration into foreign economic systems as branch plant economies, preservation in a state of dependence and underdevelopment, and most particularly, an inability to protect their majorities from the ravages of neoliberal topdown development priorities. Concluding Note In sum, we are in the midst of an antidemocratic counterrevolution in which globalization and its imperatives are being used to weaken popular and elected authority in favor of a system of domination by supercitizens, the TNCs. This process sows the seeds of its own destruction, as it serves a small global minority, damages the majority, breeds financial instability, and exacerbates the environmental crisis. Its destructive tendencies are likely to produce an explosion if the process is not contained and democracy is not rehabilitated. Halting this antidemocratic juggernaut will be difficult, not only because of the power of its beneficiaries, but also because it operates