Society, to be sure, does not like this very well; it saith, Whoso goes to walk alone, accuses the whole world; he declareth all to be unfit to be his companions; it is very uncivil, nay, insulting; Society will retaliate.

[Ralph Waldo Emerson, “The Transcendentalist”]

(Perhaps I seem to be on an Emerson kick today; but I actually ran into the other as I was looking for this.)

Though Emerson did not expressly mean for the above passage to refer to globalism, he might as well have, and perhaps he would have if he had lived today rather than then.  Another, from a different essay, could also apply, although I take it out of context:

Truth also has its roof, and bed, and board.  Make yourself necessary to the world, and mankind will give you bread…

[from “Literary Ethics”]

Emerson was talking about the necessity of Truth and encouraging writers to live by it; but today’s immigration protests are quite related, since the protesters want to remind us of their utility — in exchange for roof, bed, and board.

The first quote above merely recognizes Society’s selfish nature and might be applied to Latin American anti-globalists, whom the U.S. may accuse of stand-offish behavior — How dare they withdraw from us, isolate themselves rather than lend their strength to our efforts and the global effort? — but on the subject of immigration, that quote came to my mind when listening to various predictions of the effects of the mass workplace walkouts.  Commentators have been suggesting that the protests could backfire…because, of course, so many non-Hispanic Americans will want to eat their Mexican dishes, have their crops tended and their homes built, and will not want to find last-minute babysitters.  I.e., some pundits and politicians have been deriding the destructive effect the walkout may have:  “These people are coming here to benefit from our economy, but by their actions today they will be hurting our economy!!”   Society may retaliate.

You will notice that my lip-synching did not include the phrase “benefit our economy.”

But this argument is very old.  Feudal lords did not want their servants to be seen or heard.  I realize such a statement will raise hackles, but it had to be said.  And, of course, it is toward the hackle-raising that we must turn our eyes, because those Latin American anti-globalists (and even home-grown American anti-globalists) gain footing thanks to the reality, or the appearance of the reality, of the lingering system of feudalism which may have endured through the development of liberal and free market economies.

Capital has the tendency to accrue over time; as capital passes from generation to generation along well-defined power conduits, the accrual can create new feudal lords.  Some activists believe that trans-national corporations represent the new feudal powers; others, nations; yet others, wealthy dynasties.

But capital can accrue in many more places via free market capitalism, more so the freer it is.  When capital begins to accrue in developing nations which are engaging in a freer market than they ever utilized before, they may begin to feel a strength they had not already possessed as they accrue more capital.  The same can be said of our immigrant population.

Some players want to maintain the feudal power laws that had developed before the development of these 3rd-world economies, this 3rd-world population.  Yet others, the new powers, may seek to establish new power laws to ensure their new place in the world:  i.e., become the new lords.  Though capital can accrue in more places the freer the market, as it begins to accrue, inevitably new power laws defining its flow also begin to accrue.  This is something which must be anticipated and prevented by those who do not wish to become the new servants.  Unfortunately, the determination of who is the master, who the servant, will continue to perturb the world, and I do not foresee the advent of an egalitarianism that may prevent the turbulence.