While in one sense globalisation is not a new system as capital was global since the inception of capitalism few centuries ago, we can find many novel trajectories of capital movement in today's world. One of them is the "electronic herd," a concept used by Thomas L. Freedman in his classic book The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

Freedman is one of the great proponents and a high priest of globalization, and also quite paradoxically a hard-core supporter of Iraq War. While the book is one of the most prominent one written to vehemently support and propagate the process of current globalisation, it does not escape itself from the contradictions and paradoxes inherent in the process.

Globalisation is, to Freedman, a dream for sale of the middle class American lifestyle. The assumption is that the whole world can buy and live with it. This dream can be realised by sharing the global economic space dominated by the US.

The dominant economic and political partner of globalisation is the US, and one can reach there sooner or later. The logic he presented is, the "electronic herd," the new electronic technology, which is the "driving force" of interdependence.

While technology is an important component of social change, it may not be the "driving force" as propounded by Freedman. How to use technology and for what purpose are not determined by technology itself, but by people who control it.

Whether nuclear technology would produce power (electricity) or warheads (e.g., in World War II for domination and control) was decided by those who controlled it. By attributing an agency for social change to technology, Freedman attempted to shift the blames of global disharmonies created by globalisation from the actual perpetrators to technology itself.

Freedman continued, there was interdependence in the old economy, which was based on manufacture. However, electronic technology in today's globalisation is qualitatively different from before, as it has "a major shift from manufacture to services" across national boundaries. Therefore, "labour mobility is no longer as important as it was in the past (as you can get your services in Singapore, Bangalore ... slaves need not to be brought from Africa). Capital can go where labour is."

This assertion of Freedman also gives rise to a number of questions and paradoxes: First, while sometimes capital moves to different places to exploit cheap labour, evidences show, however, that it does not remain there for long time.

Secondly, contrary to what Freedman said, labour movement is in fact more important, and therefore creates more concern, than any time before. It is one of the most important issues in the Nafta, and the European Union to guard Mexican labours. The US calls them "illegal aliens." However, not a single company in the US can run without these "illegal aliens."

Paradoxically, today's borders are tighter than before to guard labour migration. Guest workers, sex trade etc. are now crucial and critical issues in the age of globalisation. Finally, we can only find the qualitative difference between old economy and current globalisation; however, relations of production, exploitation, and maximisation of profit before people remain the same.

Freedman argues that a country's resource is no longer tied down to natural resources so long as there are resources in the minds of its people (i.e., human capital). And therefore, ideas (and not the natural resources) are most important today for development. Again, this kind of argument seems quite persuasive, however occludes other side of reality.

First, ideas are important today, but material resources, Iraq's oil for instance, are more important than anything. Secondly, countries such as Iraq or South Africa, which have important natural resources, have paid, and still paying, the highest price in the era of globalisation.

There is a direct connection between the availability of natural resources and sources of prosperity and misery. If natural resources were not important today, so many Iraqi lives would not have been disappeared. Finally, Freedman seems to say, "Hey, you do not need to think of your natural resources if they are exploited by corporations. As long as you have mental resource, it's enough!"

Freedman further added, this mental resource could be obtained by anyone from any country due to the blessings of globalisation. Therefore, no country has to remain poor. In other words, "poverty is a matter of choice." However, evidence and analysis shows that poverty is not a matter of choice.

People working in the sweatshops and earning less than a dollar per day, and remaining in poverty is not a matter of choice. The social structure or the relation of production is the most important thing while addressing poverty. Freedman's logic blames the victim -- the poor, and sanctifies the oppressors and system that perpetuate a vicious circle of poverty.

New technology, as Freedman thinks, has increased the power of the investors. Capitalists today are more integrated. Electronic herds can exercise more influence on countries' economic and social sectors. They are the driving force on 21st century and it marks a new phase of international relations -- not international rivalry but global integration. "International relation is no longer marked by cold war, but by integration, not by military technology, but by economic technology."

Again, Freedman's declarations are fraught with numerous contradictions: First, Cold War was actually a hot war. Both superpowers developed weapons, which can destroy the world in few seconds. Instead of removing poverty, they both made bunkers.

One side thinks, human dignity comes from private property and free market, while other side thought private property destroys human dignity. In the current era of globalisation, Cold War is replaced by a new war for global dominance.

Second, Freedman was wrong when he said that current international relation is based not on international rivalry but on global integration. Historical evidence shows that worst forms of dictators have been installed and supported by global managers, which create more tensions in their regions.

Third, "The new world is characterised by electronic technology, not by military technology!" Absolutely wrong assertion. Most sophisticated electronic technology today is military technology. "Military industrial complex" is the most dominant feature in today's society.

Often military and economy are fused into one, as they go hand in hand. Capitalism, colonialism, and military conquest all go together. Preparing for war while competing for free market is the history of capitalism and modern globalisation.

Even after Cold War, capitalism is not peaceful, as Freedman thinks. War is an active part of globalisation for the capitalists to maintain their domination. Afghan war, Iraq war, Lebanon war--all are happening in Freedman's "peaceful world."

Freedman in his book argued that the new phase of globalisation is "free market." There is no alternative to free market economy today. If you follow it, you will get "Lexus," but if you don't, you will be crashed, and hang on the "Olive tree." Electronic technology is not without flaws. But it can correct itself. Herd cannot be stupid for long time, he added.

"Free market" is a deceptive connotation, as all countries do not have free access to market, while capital seeks free access to exploit labour. Therefore, "free market" wants abolition of governments' intervention and control.

In current globalisation, free market is only for powerful corporations and powerful countries. Some critiques argue that the world has never been, and will never be, a free market. They think, there is always a viable opposition to free market. If free market is to operate freely, it will destroy humanity.

Following Freedman's argument, we can say that the herd can correct itself; however, the price for correction is very high. More than 20 million died alone in World War II. Finally, there are always tensions between different corporations, as they compete with each other. Tensions in capitalism can never be resolved, as critics argue.

Because of globalisation, Freedman agues elsewhere, the "wretched of the earth" can go to the Disney land. What he means is that the poor and destitute people of the earth can become like Americans, and get a Lexus, as globalisation creates greater economic opportunities, tolerance and individual autonomy.

Evidence shows that Freedman's propagation is nothing but a "mere dream" and a form of deception, as even in the US, the middle class is gradually shrinking. On the other hand, the middle class is now moving to the wretched of the earth.

From priests to prostitutes all are selling their labours in capitalism as long as their labour is valued in the market. The capitalists will move to any place where labour is poor and cheap. Jobs are now leaving the US as companies are moving to countries like India, and China.

Despite having enormous wealth, the US enacted legislation in December 6, 2005 that put 200,000 poor Americans in dire hunger as $140 food subsidy was eliminated. It also slashed medical and childcare coverage.

Statistics shows, poor people in the US increased by 37 million in 2005. More than 600,000 children cannot have enough food. More than 7 million more poor people added in 2006.

Therefore, Freedman's assertions are one-sided, ideological, and biased. The assertions reveal one side of the reality to mask and occlude another side of globalisation, which is fraught with exploitation, inequality, mass poverty, hunger, blood and tears.

Md. Saidul Islam is a PhD candidate in Sociology at York University, Canada.