To: •••@••.••• (world-system network) From: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Globalisation 6/16/97, Karl Carlile quoted David Yaffe: >On the one hand [globalism] does mean new forms of >capitalist integration and co-operation across national boundaries but >on the other hand, it also means active competition between national >and regional capitalists. 'So the 'global' economy if anything may >mean less and not more capitalist unity.' The overall consequence of >'globalisation' far from integrating capital is at least as likely to >produce disintegration. Perhaps a useful metaphor would be mafia turf behavior, competition among themselves, but only as to who will do the exploiting and over what domain - there's no consumer benefit, so to speak, from the competition. In final analysis, the behavior is likely to be more collaborative than competitive - more about this below. >[Transnational capital] may well, ultimately, rely on the military power >of the last remaining 'super-power' to sustain the sovereignty of the >market. Further, it depends on such local political jurisdictions to >maintain the conditions of economic stability and labour discipline >which are the conditions for profitable investment. And finally, new >kinds of inter-imperialist rivalry will emerge in which the nation >state is still the principal agent. Critical distinctions are glossed over above, and the seemingly cumulative case for the necessity of the strong nation state doesn't hold... Pax-Ameriana is not an argument for the nation-state generally. The US as global enforcer is a unique special case, and the US military is tied to a globalist agenda that bears little relationship to anything that could rightfully be described as domestic national interests. US interests have been redefined (by the CFR, so to speak) to be the interests of globalism, reflecting in fact the interests of the corporate elite that both dominate US politics and are the core instigators/ beneficiaries of globalism itself. The residual role of the nation state generally - as downsizing and deregulation are allowed to run their course - is exemplified where the ravages of globalisation are most advanced - in the Third World. Here we see the future: the role of the nation state is to manage the populace, by police-state tactics if necessary, and to extract tribute (in the form of taxes) to be paid to the corporate overlords as debt servicing or for corporate goods, with as little as possible retained for domestic infrastructure maintenance. With respect to corporations, their policies and their operations, governments are to play laissez-faire. Thus governments are factored out of most of what is going on. The nation state is no longer needed as a fortress home for capitalists - nation-based competitive nationalism died with the postwar era. Competition will be among corporations and kiratsu conglomerates and the world will be the stage. You might have a Tokyo-Berlin-Milan firm fighting for contol over some market with a New York-Paris-London joint-venture - the example may seem frivolous but the point is that the nation state just isn't a natural center of economic gravity anymore. The Seven Sisters were early adaptors to this global paradigm - who can say if Shell is British or Dutch or whatever. Corporations which view global opportunities (both for markets and for partners) without a geographical prejudice will have a clear competitive advantage. Modern corporate rhetoric even says so explicitly, but that shouldn't throw us off, in this case, from believing it. China, like the US, is a unique special case. China _is_ a national-centric economic center - and one far too large for globalism to simply "contain", as it does Cuba. Unless China truly and sincerely kowtows to globalist hegemony, it must inevitably be dealt with by severe military measures. The irresistable force of globalism cannot ignore and will overcome the the immovable object that China currently seems at-heart to be. But once you account for China, and the special role of US/NATO, I don't see a good case for the emergence of "inter-imperialist rivalry...in which the nation state is still the principal agent". The trends and economic-power realities point otherwise. >>>From this [Ellen Meiksins Wood] advances her most important political point: >the nation state is still the terrain of (class) struggle. 'If the state is >the channel through which capital moves in the "globalised" economy, then >it is equally the means by which an anti-capitalist force could sever >capital's lifeline.' This raises a very critical issue indeed. Ms. Wood correctly identifies the dual constituencies of the historical nation state - the elite and the people - but she misses the point that this is precisely why the nation state is being consciously and urgently dismantled by the elite. The potential for anti-capitalist forces to exercise the rusty machinery of democracy (as they are trying to do right now in France, with success still quite uncertain) is seen as a direct threat to elite control - Huntington calls it the "crisis of democracy". "We" need the nation state - it is our only feasible channel to political influence. "They" - the elite - got their use, thank you very much, out of the nation state, and they're ready to move on to a modernized WTO replacement of representative government as the administrator of significant global affairs. "They" don't need a strong nation state anymore, and in fact it has become an albatross around their necks. Thus, from the perspective of class strategy - and ironically for the progressive minded - preservation of the nation state and nationalist vitality has become an urgent priority for the survival of civilization's humanist elements. ~--<snip>--~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 Wexford, Ireland Cyberlib: ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib | (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: