Unmasking Globalization : The Centralization of Power in a Connected World

We Don’t Live in a Rhizome

In their seminal work A Thousand Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari introduced the concept of the rhizome as a way of understanding decentralized networks. They describe the rhizome as a system without a center, a nonhierarchical structure that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. The rhizome’s principles — connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity, asignifying rupture, cartography, and decalcomania — challenge traditional hierarchical thinking and promote a decentralized approach to organization and knowledge.

These six principles can be briefly outlined as follows:

1. Connection: Any point in a rhizome can connect to any other point, bypassing hierarchical structures.
2. Heterogeneity: A rhizome is composed of different types of elements, rather than uniform entities.
3. Multiplicity: The structure of a rhizome is defined not by a single point or identity but by the number of connections it has.
4. Asignifying Rupture: If a rhizome is broken at one point, it will continue to grow elsewhere, unaffected by the rupture.
5. Cartography: The rhizome is a map, not a tracing; it fosters an open-ended process of becoming rather than being.
6. Decalcomania: Rhizomes resist structural or generative models; they grow through network connections rather than replication.

These principles present the rhizome as a decentralized and resilient structure, where no single node holds the system together. In today’s globalized world, some theorists, such as Byung-Chul Han in his book Hyperculture, compare this global interconnectedness to Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome, arguing that the contemporary world functions similarly to a rhizomatic structure, interconnected yet decentralized. However, this comparison overlooks a crucial difference: while our globalized world is interconnected like a rhizome, it is not decentralized. The interconnectedness of today’s world does not lead to resilience but rather to vulnerability. The fall of one critical node in the global system can set off a domino effect that threatens to bring down the entire structure. Therefore, the fourth principle (“asignifying rupture”) of the rhizome is not satisfied here. Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome is characterized by its ability to withstand disruptions and regrow independently, embodying a form of decentralization where no single point of failure can bring down the entire structure.

In contrast, the contemporary globalized world is more akin to a tightly interconnected web of dependencies, where the failure of a single node can trigger a cascade of failures across the system. This interconnectedness creates systemic risks that are far more aligned with centralized power dynamics than with the resilience and decentralization of a rhizome. For instance, the global financial system, international trade networks, and supply chains are all characterized by a high degree of centralization and interdependence, where the collapse of one significant player can lead to a global crisis.

The Centralization of Economic Power: Multinational Corporations and Financial Institutions

Globalization has facilitated the rise of multinational corporations (MNCs) that wield enormous economic power and influence across multiple countries. These corporations, such as Apple, Amazon, and ExxonMobil, often have revenues exceeding the GDPs of smaller nations, granting them the ability to influence policies, labor markets, and economic conditions on a global scale. The concentration of economic power in the hands of a few corporate leaders and shareholders creates a form of global oligarchy, where decision-making is centralized within the corporate elite.

These MNCs not only control vast resources but also dominate supply chains, dictate terms of trade, and influence government policies through lobbying and political contributions. This centralization of power undermines the notion of a decentralized, rhizomatic global system. Instead, it reveals a structure where a few powerful entities hold significant sway over the global economy, creating a fragile system that is heavily dependent on the stability and decisions of these corporations.

Similarly, global banks, investment firms, and hedge funds wield substantial influence over international finance, currency markets, and investment flows. Institutions like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and BlackRock have assets under management that surpass the GDP of many countries, allowing them to shape global financial trends, manipulate markets, and dictate economic policies. Central banks and international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, further consolidate power by imposing economic policies on countries seeking financial assistance. These institutions often require structural adjustments and austerity measures that centralize economic decision-making and power within a small group of technocrats and financial elites.

The concentration of power is not limited to the economic realm; it also extends to political institutions and international organizations. Bodies such as the United Nations (UN) or the World Trade Organization (WTO) play crucial roles in setting global norms, rules, and regulations. While these organizations are composed of multiple member states, decision-making power is often concentrated in the hands of a few powerful countries or groups of countries.

For instance, in the UN Security Council, the five permanent members (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) hold veto power, allowing them to block any substantive resolution they oppose. This creates a hierarchical structure where a small group of nations can exert disproportionate influence over global security and policy decisions. Similarly, in the WTO, the ability of a few powerful countries to shape trade rules and negotiations underscores the concentration of political power at the global level.

Interconnected Financial Markets and the 2008 Crisis

The 2008 financial crisis serves as a stark example of how the interconnectedness of global financial markets can lead to systemic risk and the centralization of power. The crisis, which originated in the United States with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, quickly spread to other markets around the world due to the complex web of financial relationships and dependencies. The failure of Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank, set off a domino effect, triggering a cascade of failures across the financial system.

As the crisis unfolded, it became clear that many other financial institutions were heavily exposed to similar risks, threatening their solvency and the stability of the entire global economy. The crisis revealed the extent to which the global economy had become dependent on a handful of large financial institutions that had amassed significant influence over global markets. These institutions were deemed “too big to fail,” and their collapse would have had catastrophic effects on the broader economy, prompting unprecedented bailouts and financial assistance from governments around the world.

This interconnectedness and concentration of power in the global financial system stand in stark contrast to the resilience and decentralization of Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome. Rather than a structure that can withstand disruptions and regrow independently, the global financial system is characterized by a high degree of centralization, where the failure of a single node can lead to a systemic collapse.

Global supply chains represent another area where interconnectedness can lead to systemic risk and the concentration of power. In a rhizomatic structure, the disruption of one node does not significantly impact the overall system, as other nodes can continue to function independently. However, in today’s globalized economy, supply chains are often highly centralized, with key suppliers and manufacturing hubs playing critical roles in the production and distribution of goods.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of these global supply chains, as disruptions in manufacturing hubs like China had widespread repercussions across the globe. The pandemic led to shortages of essential goods, delays in production, and increased costs, highlighting the vulnerability of a system that relies heavily on a few critical nodes. This centralization of production and distribution reflects a departure from the decentralized, resilient structure of a rhizome, underscoring the concentration of power and the systemic risks inherent in today’s global economy.

The Illusion of Decentralized Power in Modern Society

Several thinkers have argued that power in modern society has become decentralized, diffused across various networks rather than concentrated in a single authority. Michel Foucault, for instance, introduced the concept of the “disciplinary society,” where power is exercised not through direct force but through various institutions and practices that regulate behavior. Foucault argued that power operates in a capillary fashion, permeating all levels of society and manifesting through surveillance, normalization, and discipline.

Gilles Deleuze built upon Foucault’s ideas, proposing the notion of the “society of control.” In Deleuze’s view, power in the modern world operates not through confinement and discipline but through continuous modulation and control. In a society of control, individuals are no longer confined to specific institutions like schools, factories, or prisons; instead, they are subjected to a continuous process of monitoring and modulation, where boundaries are fluid, and control is exerted through networks and algorithms.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri further developed these ideas in their concept of “Empire”, arguing that power in the contemporary world is not centralized in a specific state or institution but is instead distributed across a global network of corporations, governments, and international organizations. According to Hardt and Negri, this decentralized network constitutes a new form of sovereignty that operates through biopolitical control, managing life itself rather than merely regulating behavior.

While these theories provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of power in modern society, they fall short in recognizing the continued centralization of power under neoliberal capitalism. The decentralization of power that Foucault, Deleuze, Hardt, and Negri describe is, in many ways, an illusion. It is true that power has become less visible, less direct, and more diffuse, but this does not mean it is any less centralized.

The Centralization of Power Under Cloud Capitalism

In the era of cloud capitalism or ‘techno-feudalism’, power remains concentrated in the hands of a few, even if it presents itself as decentralized. The primary sources of power — wealth, capital, and data — are still controlled by a small elite who wield immense influence over the global economy and society. Tech giants, multinational corporations, and financial institutions have amassed unprecedented levels of power, shaping policy, culture, and public opinion.

The control exerted by these entities is not overt or visible; it operates under the guise of choice, freedom, and individual autonomy. We are led to believe that we are free to make our own choices, to shape our own destinies, but in reality, our choices are circumscribed by the invisible hand of capital. The algorithms that dictate our online behavior, the platforms that mediate our social interactions, and the corporations that control our access to goods and services all operate within a framework of power that is fundamentally hierarchical and centralized.

What Yanis Varoufakis calls “Techno-feudalism”, or what I call “Cloud Capitalism”, is a modern economic system where power is concentrated in the hands of a few technology companies that control the infrastructure of the digital world. Varoufakis says that “the moment you enter Amazon, you exist capitalism”: platforms like Amazon are the equivalent of you stepping outside the streets of your city, looking around and realizing that one single person controls who is able to buy, who is able to sell, what prices are charged and even what your eyes see. In a digital platform, the entire marketplace is owned by one single person whose algorithm decides everything.

Unlike classical feudalism, which was based on land ownership, techno-feudalism is characterized by control over digital platforms and data. In this system, tech giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple operate as “digital landlords,” exerting immense influence over both economic transactions and social interactions. They create closed ecosystems that users must navigate, making them both the gatekeepers and the beneficiaries of the digital economy. ‘Cloudalists’ extract cloud rent from the vassal capitalists who use their platforms: for example, individual firms compete on Amazon to sell their products, Amazon extracting around 40% of everything that is bought there.

Digital fiefdoms are a metaphor Varoufakis uses to describe the fragmented, controlled environments created by tech companies within the broader digital landscape. Each tech giant operates its own “fiefdom,” a tightly regulated domain where it sets the rules, controls user access, and monetizes activities. These digital fiefdoms are akin to the feudal estates of medieval times, where lords wielded absolute authority over their land and serfs. In the digital realm, tech companies act as modern-day lords, dictating the terms of engagement and extracting value from their users, who have little choice but to comply if they want to participate in the digital economy.

To understand the centralization of power under cloud capitalism, we must examine the role of data and technology. In the digital age, data has become a critical resource, akin to capital in its capacity to generate power and influence. The accumulation and control of data by a few tech giants have created a new form of economic power, one that is based on the ability to collect, analyze, and manipulate vast amounts of information.

This concentration of data in the hands of a few companies represents a new form of centralized power, one that is not immediately visible but is nevertheless profoundly influential. These companies have the ability to shape public opinion, influence political outcomes, and dictate market trends through their control of data. This form of power is not decentralized; it is concentrated in the hands of a few who have the ability to manipulate and control the flow of information.

Tech giants control what content is seen on their platforms through algorithms and moderation policies. For instance, Facebook and Google have significant influence over news dissemination via their control over social feeds and search results. This power allows them to shape public opinion and political discourse. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is a prime example where data was used to influence political outcomes. Data harvested from Facebook was utilized to create targeted political ads aimed at influencing voter behavior in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Brexit referendum.

Big Tech companies have substantial economic resources that they use to lobby for favorable regulations and policies. For example, in 2020, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft spent over $60 million combined on lobbying efforts in the United States alone. These efforts aim to influence antitrust regulations, data privacy laws, and other policies that could impact their business operations. Companies like Amazon have been accused of using their data to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as using data from third-party sellers on their platform to launch competing products. This not only affects the competitive landscape but also centralizes economic power further by undermining smaller businesses. Amazon’s use of data to predict consumer behavior allows it to optimize pricing, inventory, and logistics. The company’s recommendation algorithms, driven by massive amounts of data, heavily influence purchasing decisions, consolidating economic power by directing consumer spending.

Furthermore, the centralization of wealth and capital has not diminished in the era of cloud capitalism. The financialization of the economy has led to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite, who use their economic power to shape policy and influence political decisions. This concentration of wealth is not a new phenomenon; it is a continuation of the hierarchical power structures that have characterized capitalism since its inception.

Hardt and Negri concluded that globalization led to a decentralization of power through the spread of diffuse, interconnected networks. In fact, the opposite conclusion can be derived: the interconnectedness of today’s world leads to a centralization of power in which the fall of the ‘center’ represents a domino effect that risks the collapse of the entire system. Power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and institutions, creating a fragile economic system that depends heavily on the stability of these entities.

Despite the claims of theorists like Foucault, Deleuze, Hardt, and Negri, power in the contemporary world remains fundamentally centralized. The decentralization of power they describe is, in many ways, a smokescreen that obscures the continued concentration of power in the hands of a few. The hierarchical power structures that underpin capitalism have not disappeared; they have merely become less visible, operating under the guise of decentralization and networked control. Whether it is the boardrooms of multinational corporations, the corridors of government, or the offices of tech giants, the decisions that shape our world are made by a small group of individuals who wield immense power and influence.

As we navigate the complexities of a globalized world, it is crucial to recognize the inherent centralization of power that characterizes our current system. The notion of a decentralized, rhizomatic global order may be appealing, but it does not reflect the realities of our interconnected and interdependent world. Understanding the concentration of power and the systemic risks it entails is essential for building a more resilient and equitable global system, where power is truly decentralized and distributed more equitably among all members of society.