re: Guidebook 2.a. "Globalization: crisis and opportunity"

12/23/2000, g kohler wrote:
    > ZNet (Dec 2000) has an article, entitled "The ABCs of the
    Global Economy"by the "Dollars and Sense Collective" (incl.
    Abby Scher), which contains the following paragraph:

Dear Gernot,

Many thanks for your collaborative response.  Let me first
comment on the ZNet thesis... and I realize you were not
implying that you agree with it:

        Znet >> "This is a world-historical moment in which it is
        possible to stop the corporate offensive, a moment when the
        ruling partnership composed of the United States, Europe and
        to a lesser extent Japan is fracturing, as the European
        Union reaches its limit on the amount of deregulation it
        will take and Japan's economy is in turmoil. This may allow
        those opposing the ruling bloc  Third World governments
        (which may be conservative), labor, and environmentalists
        worldwide  to build alliances of convenience with
        sympathetic elements within the EU to guide the reshaping of
        the global institutions in a liberatory manner."

I like the fact that the 'Dollars & Sense Collective' is
exploring structural relationships.  That, many of us would
agree, is where we will find the regime's strategic
vulnerabilities and our strategic opportunities.  I also
like the fact that the Collective senses that a
'world-historical moment' is upon us, because I think they
are right about that.  They will have to look deeper
however, to find the divisions-of-interest that can be
effectively exploited by an aware movement at this time.

There is indeed resistance to deregulation in Europe,
particularly in France.  Nonetheless, Europe remains
overwhelmingly commited to neoliberalism.  To a limited
extent the EU is striving for advantage relative to America,
but free trade promises to make any such adavantage
meaningless in the long run.  Even when the EU does seek
advantage, it does so timidly within the boundaries of the
WTO regime, and when European nations seek relative
advantage, they do so timidly within the boudaries of the
Brussels regime.  Europe seems to be establishing an
independent military force, but has no vision for that force
that differs from the neo-imperialist role which the
Pentagon and NATO have been pursuing already. The main
effect of such a force will be to transfer more of the costs
of empire from American to European taxpayers. There is, for
better or worse, no real split in the Atlantic Alliance.

Japan's economy is suffering for the same reason Southeast
Asia's did before it - it is under a multi-pronged attack by
the West.  We are in the final global shakeout phase of
capitalism, and Western elites have no intention of being
shaken out from their position of control.  It only took a
few transactions on the global financial markets to start
the avalanche that brought down South Korea and the other
Tigers. Japan is a bigger fish to fry.  The welcoming of
China into the WTO is one of many Western tactics in the
attack on Japan - flooding the world market with low-cost
goods. (China will need to be dealt with later, and
preparations are well under way for that episode, as we can
tell from the NMD and Space Command initiatives.) Underneath
the globalization overlay, we still have the West screwing
the rest, and in some ways we are regressing to a previous
century's version of imperialism.  Huntington spells all of
this out for us in his "Clash of Civilizations".  Lame-duck
Japan is in no position to play Europe off against the US.
Instead it will find itself under threat by China, bait in a
larger geopolitical game.


    Gernot > The key words "liberatory manner" and "alliances of
    convenience" suggest some similarity with your approach.
    They also see opportunity rather than TINA (another
    similarity). One of their points appears to be different
    from your approach - namely, they include Third World
    governments as potential allies.

At the level of generality you identify, there is indeed a
similarity.

Third-world governments are yet to be discussed in the
Guidebook.  Such governments indeed are candidates for
alliance, and "may be conservative" only hints at the
immense range of individual cases to be considered: Cuba,
Israel, India, Afghanistan, Chile, Columbia, Iran,
Hondouras, China, Libya, etc. etc.  So many scenarios!  In
some sense the revolution has two equally huge problems to
solve: the first is taking the heart out of the beast; the
second is harmonizing the international community.  Most
certainly the international community will need to be a
participant in that process.

thanks again,
rkm