Ljubisa R. Mitrovic
Globalization as a process, by the impact it makes upon the development, pushes more and more to the margins the interests of most of the countries and population while it enhances wealth and power of the minority, that is, the protagonists of the large capital in modern world. In that sense the scientists are right in stressing that the globalist scenario is contradictory in multiple ways since a) it produces very different effects for the center and the periphery, b) the developed countries are the subject whereas the underdeveloped are the object of globalization, c) there is a great number of hungry and underfed people in the underdeveloped countries and a small number of the rich in the developed countries, d) it causes chaotic and contradictory processes of deregulation and centralization, e) it liberalizes activities at the financial markets and it preaches the openness of the underdeveloped countries’ economies, while it preserves and extends important protectionism and other limitations in the developed countries, f) it causes conflicts of state and transnational interests, g) overcomes the borders of the national markets and creates international monopolies... The above-stated contradictions could be also discussed regarding the relationship between the economic slavery and freedom in modern world. [3]
Table 2. Global Economic Distribution (1960-1990)
Year Percentage of the Global Income Pouring into the Richest 20% Percentage of the Global Income Pouring into the Poorest 20% Relations Between the Richest and the Poorest
Source: Brown and Kane, according to The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997, p. 456

Having in view such contradictory and negative consequences of globalization upon the social development in the world, it is not accidental that from Sietle (1999) to Genova (2001) there has been created in today’s world a powerful antiglobalist movement of the postcapitalist alternative with the slogans ”The World Is Not For Sale,” “Globalization Against Globalization,” “Some Other World Is Possible,” “For the World of the Equals” etc. whose protagonists criticize the neoliberal unipolar concept of globalization, that is globalism (or, as it is commonly known as the “new world order”) demanding a reform of the international economic order for the benefit of the world majority.
Though the process of development and integration of the production forces of capitalism and capital internationalization is related to the emergence of capitalism and the logic of its development reproduction, the appearance of globalization is of more recent date and it is linked with the contemporary development phase of the so-called global capitalism, with the new technology activities and their influence upon the creation of the global world market, upon the modern division of labor and the world planetary interdependence. The notion of globalization denotes an ever increasing interdependence of the world society at present, “intensification of the social relations at the world level that connects distant places in such a way that the local developments are shaped by the events taking place miles away and vice versa.[4] ”Hence globalization can be understood as “action at a distance.[5] ”Such activities transform regional, national, local and even personal level of the social experience.
Globalization as a complex process involves various spheres of modern world society and it has various aspects such as the technological, the economic, the social-institutional, the political, the cultural, the information, the infrastructure, the military-geostrategic and the ecological ones.[6]
At present there are various actors of the globalization process (corporations, states, classes and movements, managers, regional and international organizations and institutions) as well as various globalization strategies (conservative, reformist and radical ones).
In the sociological analysis there should be a distinction made between globalization and mondialization. The concept of mondialization is larger and it comprises planetary networking in various domains (from technology, economy, infrastructure to culture and media), integrating and universalization of activities, of forces, of values and power of mankind. Mondialization assumes a universal, general interest which dialectically comprises interests of the special and the particular. Mondialization in the integration process preserves the unity of differences. It lies upon an non-antagonistic associative type of the social power distribution in which the growth of one part of mankind multiplies and strengthens the power of the whole world (mankind). Unlike mondialization, globalization denotes the concentration of power and capital at the group level (corporations, states, regions) and it can lead to the creation of monopolies and unipolarism. Of course, globalization is, as a contradictory process, often a medium towards mondialization. [7]
In modern science there are different classifications of the historical process of concentration and centralization of the capital, the integration and the corporation transformation just as there are typologies of the globalization process. Here some of them will be pointed out.
The neo-Marxist Samir Amin distinguished three phases of development in the process of expansion and mondialization of capitalism, namely, the first phase of mercantile and liberal capitalism (1500-1800), the second phase of the industrial (monopolistic and state) capitalism (1800-1950) and the third phase of mondialized (global) capitalism (from 1950 onwards). In his study entitled Challenges of Mondialism (1996) Amin shows that imperialism is not just one phase, it is a permanent characteristic of capitalism. [8]
3. V. Draskovic, Pojam, uzroci i posledice globalizacije (Notion, Causes and Consequences of Globalization), Zbornik “Globalizacija i tranzicija”, Institut drustvenih nauka, Belgrade, p. 145  back
4. A. Giddens, Posledice modernosti (Consequences of Modernity), Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 1998, p. 69 back
5. D. Held, Demokratija i globalni poredak (Democracy and Global Order), Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 1997, p. 37 back
6. Vera Vratusa Zunjic, Tumacenja globalizacije i interesi drustvenih aktera (Interpretations of Globalization and Interests of Social Actors), Zbornik “Globalizacija i tranzicija”, Institut drustvenih nauka, Belgrade, 2001, p. 47 back
7. Lj. Mitrovic, Globalizacija i savremena levica (Globalization and the Modern Left), Institut za politicke studije, Belgrade, 2000, p. 14
8. S. Amin, Les Defis de la mondialisation, Paris, 1996, p. 157

 Web-designer: Plamen Ivanov - KOTA - Sofia - Bulgaria