This paper argues that whereas earlier globalization produced nationalism, colonialism and epistemological universalism, globalization presently is postcolonial, challenges the nation-state, and is marked by a break-down of universalism. It follows that globalization needs to be understood not just as global integration, as suggested by its ideologues and in economist interpretations, but equally importantly as a new mode of fragmentation. Francis Fukuyama wrote his article, “The End of History?”. it was greeted with much skepticism. In the eyes of many commentators, this was naive and simplistic American capitalist triumphalism. Fukuyama developed his ideas further in a book published a couple of years later entitled The End of History and the Last Man. According to Fukuyama, the end of the Cold War represented something very fundamental in world history. It was the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy following a century of violence during which “liberalism contended first with the remnants of absolutism, then Bolshevism and fascism, and finally an updated Marxism that threatened to lead to the ultimate apocalypse of nuclear war”. The victory of economic and political liberalism was in many ways the beginning of real globalization. While following the Second World War, flows of international trade and finance expanded to a progressively broader of countries, the end of the Cold War meant that virtually all the countries of the world were participating or had the potential to participate in the global economy. This paper will be based on two research methodologies –(1) content analysis and (2) observation method. There are two research questions of this paper—(1) Is globalization ended? And Is there any alternative of globalization? This paper will examine the Historical consequences of Globalization critically.
Key words: globalization, history, nationalism, liberalization, economy