When Kate Losse went to work for Facebook in its early days in 2005, the social media platform was, in its own words, a “fun social network for college students.” She remembers very well how a smile Mark ZuckerbergMark ZuckerbergThe Metaverse Is The World’s Strongest Argument For Social Media Regulation Big Tech Allies Point To China And Russia Threaten To Crush Antitrust Bill Hillicon Valley – Facebook Expands Reels MOREthe internet entrepreneur who co-founded Facebook and its parent company Meta Platforms, closed weekly meetings with his bare hands by raising his fist and chanting a single word: “Domination!”
Rising rapidly, Losse became Zuckerberg’s speechwriter, tasked with communicating his goals and vision to a wider audience. In a 2018 Vox article titled “I Was Zuckerberg’s Speechwriter: ‘Companies Over Countries’ Was His First Motto,” Losse recounts the genesis in a company of a motto that, despite not not from Zuckerberg or Facebook, can be accurately described. as a fundamental value of globalization in the world — a dominant force that has transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of people and altered the shape of societies almost everywhere.
The concept of “corporate over country” thrived amid the jumble of illusions and naïve ideas that surfaced after the dramatic conclusion of the Cold War, including “The End of History and the last man” by Francis Fukuyama and the concomitant triumph of liberal democracy or the left. the attachment to globalization and its corollaries of erasing borders and diminished pursuit of the national interest.
This last notion deserves particular attention because it is the link between the profound challenges facing the world today – in particular the dangerous social and political divisions that afflict almost all Western countries.
To understand this, it is necessary to grasp the inherent conflicts between nationalism and capitalism, which have been exacerbated by an increasingly small world in which commerce has moved from a local enterprise to the authority of state- nations to empires spanning the globe. view countries as irritating constraints to the growth of their power and profits.
Over time, national governments have been challenged in myriad ways by supranational entities such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and multinational pacts such as the European Union, which have certain structural biases promoting globalization. The enduring strength of nation states lies in their traditional powers of taxation, regulation, inquiry and election by the people – which they have used, with growing confidence, as tools to combat what they consider such as the excesses of globalization and its tendency to pit elites against working-class and middle-class citizens.
To understand how national sovereignty has been severely weakened by the evolving processes of globalization, it is helpful to consider how these developments have affected both the foreign and domestic policies of the United States. As America reacts to the increasingly evident hostility of the other two superpowers – China and Russia – it is very telling how radically different our response is to the actions of these two countries. China – because of its immense military, economic and technological might, its horrific human rights abuses and the increasingly brazen challenges to the United States and our allies, Australia, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines – is far more dangerous to American interests than Russia. . While waging menacing and malign designs near its borders, Russia has a struggling economy no larger than Italy’s and is in no way comparable in strength to its rival superpowers. It is toward Russia, however, that America directs its most persistent, public, forceful, and costly military and rhetorical responses.
The reason for this startling disparity is clear: the stark differences between how the US economy is affected by China and Russia. While the United States has significant economic interactions with Russia, it is absolutely overshadowed by the enormous influence and interconnectivity that characterizes the economic relationship between China and the United States, which has been fueled by the globalization. The fact that the United States and China are united economically places strong constraints on US foreign policy options.
If, for example, we were to retaliate against China with sanctions, we would be sanctioning ourselves because American trade, supply chains, jobs, and profits are highly dependent on China. Such a move would put enormous pressure on American businesses, especially multinational corporations whose conflicts of interest are vast and growing, as is their tendency to prioritize the well-being of their company over that of their country.
The long-term tensions stemming from these dual loyalties undermine American sovereignty and tip the scales in favor of China, where economic interest and national interest are ultimately identical.
William Moloney is a Fellow of Conservative Thought at the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University. He studied at Oxford and the University of London and obtained his doctorate at Harvard University. He is a former Colorado Commissioner of Education.