History

 Barber (1996) had predicted the future of international politics in his book, Jihad vs. McWorld How the World Is Both Falling Apart and Coming Together-And What This Means for Democracy.  Jihad vs. McWorld is a war being waged at present.  Although the word, Jihad, is distinctly Muslim, to Barber the Jihad side of this battle is one driven by parochial hatreds, whereas the McWorld side of this war is about universalizing markets (53).  The author further describes the two sides on the battlefield, Jihad vs. McWorld as the one re-creating ancient sub national and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without (53).  Barber does not believe that either side is democratic in the context of globalization.  The Jihad is fought between cultures, civilizations, tribes or nations.  McWorld, on the other hand, is about fast music, fast computers, and fast food, that is, massive consumption with utter disregard for everything else (Barber, 53).  Hence, Barber points out that the tribalism of the Jihad side and the consumerism of the McWorld side must somehow be balanced to achieve the goal of democratizing the world.
     Barbers analysis brings to mind a popular theory developed by Thomas Friedman no two countries with McDonalds have fought a war.  In other words, McDonalds makes a statement for a a countrys quest to globalize itself, and this statement is necessary to avoid war.  After all, McWorld is a product of popular culture driven by expansionist commerce (Barber, 17).  To put it another way, anybody that refuses to buy McDonalds because it represents Western cultural values is a Jihadist who must face war.  Barber further describes McWorld thus Its
template is American, its form style.  Its goods are as much images as material, an aesthetic as well as a product line.  It is about culture as commodity, apparel as ideology (17).  To put it another way, the McWorld side believes that Americanization and globalization go together, and the backlash against globalization comes from have-nots that do not possess tremendous resources like the United States and could therefore turn out to be Americas enemies.  Another way to understand the McWorld side of the war is to view America as the big bully that tries to impose its culture upon people with the threat that they would face extinction if they do not become American enough.  Consuming McDonalds is a statement of friendship that any nation can send Americas way, thereby avoiding war with the mightiest military in the world.
     Understanding globalization as Americanization  given Americas vast successes in the global economy  Barber writes that by shrinking the world and diminishing the salience of national borders, the imperatives have in combination achieved a considerable victory over factious and particularize, and not least of all over nationalism (54).  After all, the American brand is nationalistic, just as the Jihad side would like to maintain its own nationalistic character by avoiding all that appears Western.  Both groups at war are extremists.  Barber does not refer to radical Islam alone when he makes mention of Jihad.  Rather, Hamas and Hezbollah are in the same group as the Russian Zhirinovsky, the Serbs of Bosnia, and separatists in Occitan France, Quebec and Catalonia.  In short, all who oppose Americanization are Jihadists. 
     From the perspective of McWorld, America must continue to take the lead in managing and sustaining globalization.  Property rights, training and retraining of employees, successful free markets, as well as new political systems that sustain globalization are vital.  America must assert its supremacy in guiding the system of globalization.  Moreover, the United States must speak up for democratization, along with the European Union, the United Nations Development Program, as well as non-governmental groups that are meant to monitor and promote human rights.  But, the Jihadists believe that America is out to destroy their own cultures and values with its powerful media.  Writing on the subject of Hollywood and how its film distribution around the world is altering cultures, Barber states The infotainment telesector may neither actively seek nor even passively wish to exercise power, but will inevitably have it (82).  In other words, the McWorld side of the war that has originated in America (where McDonalds was birthed) is impressive enough to change cultures of people around the globe, regardless of whether those people appreciate it or not. 
     In Barbers view, the world cannot be democratized as it is globalized the McDonalds way.  When America sends out its culture via the media to almost all nations, not everybody in the world appreciates it.  Democracy requires all peoples voices to be heard and heeded before decisions of global importance are made.  Hence, the World Trade Organization protests globalization on behalf of the developing nations whenever these nations are threatened by it.  As an effect of globalization, the developing nations are asked to accept the rich countries rules and regulations on labor and environmental protection.  The developed countries, too, were unable to afford these standards in the past.  Because the pace of development is extraordinarily rapid with respect to globalization, the World Trade Organization wants to emphasize that developing nations must be given more time to adjust to change. 
     Barber agrees that the world requires an arbitrator like the World Trade Organization to resolve the dispute between Jihadists and consumers of McDonalds.  In fact, his thesis revolves around the differences between socioeconomic classes.  Clearly, the Jihadists do not possess the resources of America to develop consumer societies.  If the Jihad side was rich like the McWorld side, it would not have to target Western culture and values through its war.  Nobody can be forced to watch Hollywood films.  However, American culture and values taught unto the world by media may become an issue because the have-nots are envious of the haves.  Religion does not teach envy.  Rather, Hollywood films clearly reveal the differences between the haves and the have-nots, almost compelling the latter to resist the McDonalds way because the Jihadists cannot live the American Dream, as the McWorld side would call it. 
     When the Jihad vs. McWorld war is waged at the World Trade Organization, it has developing nations arguing that the terms of free trade are actually dictated by economically powerful countries and the latter are the only ones with the power to make or break rules and regulations of transnational institutions such as the World Trade Organization.  Thus, pure democracy appears as a dream for this organization.  Just the same, the World Trade Organization is in a good position to work at consolidating all of its member nations as far as rules of free trade are concerned.  When a Korean farmer suddenly appeared during a meeting of World Trade Organization and committed suicide, the problems facing the global political economy were highlighted  that, in fact, the interests of the poor must be heeded, better than before.  Such events illustrate the negative feelings of the have-nots with respect to globalization, simply because they have not the power to speed up their processes to render them competitive in the global marketplace.  Thus, globalization is like a powerful revolution, pitting rich nations against the poor, just as the conflict theory of inequality predicts in sociological terms.
     Barber maintains that the Jihadists are violent and cannot convince the McWorld side to adopt their cultures and values.  But, the McWorld view of global political affairs is equally unreasonable.  Hence, Barber would like the reader to come up with his or her own view of the creation of a civil society in the era of globalization.  According to the author, both McWorld and Jihad weaken nations.  Jihad splinters them but increase their dependence on McWorld, McWorld draws nations out of their isolation and autarky, but in making them dependent reduces their power (Barber, 48).  In his journalistic style, Barber would like individuals across national boundaries to take responsibility for how they wish to be governed.  They do not have to choose either the Jihad or the McWorld side, that is, tribalism over consumerism or Americanism over radical Islam.  They may opt to establish their own groups to advocate democracy as they refuse both the Jihad and the McWorld sides.  After all, cultural and socioeconomic differences are facets of reality despite globalization.  Thus, Jihad vs. McWorld simply suggests that there is a way out of this struggle between the Jihad and the McWorld sides, and leaves it to readers and policymakers to imagine the kinds of approaches to end this battle so as to democratize the world through globalization.  The bottom line is democratization of the world rather than extremist Americanism or any other form of nationalism or seperatism.