Re: PFPC

In a message dated 5/12/2003 3:55:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:
> I am not convinced by> > Chase-Dunn's location of centrality in an amorphous> 
>> semi-periphery - it seems to me far more likely that> > the lead in 
>equalizing global power and wealth will> > be> > taken by countries such as 
>China and India, because> > they are already politically centralized, and> > 
>because> > of their central geopolitical location (there are> > important 
>extraterritorial agents, but they are also> > regionally situated.)
Interesting--I see the most dynamic politics in the world coming out of the 
'global justice'/WSF kinds of movements which have their center of gravity in 
Brazil and Southwestern Europe (ATTAC is based in France, Italy has the most 
dynamic movement in Europe).  Obviously, they have global aspirations, and 
plenty of friends in many other places, not least India (where the next WSF 
will be held).  The Indian government is presently hitching itself to the 
US-led 'war-on-terrorism' bandwagon--is this a long term geopolitical logic, or 
just the result of idiots in charge?  Meanwhile China remains too repressive 
for a dynamic pole of movements to emerge.  It is now attending G-8 meetings, 
seemingly more eager to attach itself to the rich nations than to lead the 
poor.  I think the question of how the global justice pole can reconcile itself 
with or even talk to the 'periphery' politics of, not only China, but also 
Zimbabwe, the Nepal rebels, the Colombia rebels and many other formations that 
provide some degree of protection/power for marginalized people is one of the 
most daunting questions.  The other really daunting question is how these 
movements can work with/talk to 'rich people's politics' like Western women's 
groups, 'mainstream' environmental groups, NGOs, the bland left-pole of 
electoral politics in most core countries.  So I guess I agree with Chase 
Dunn/Boswell that a 'semi-periphery' of sorts remains key--global justice 
movements are located between the core and the margins, in important ways-the 
Zapatistas are based in one of the poorest states in Mexico, but the leadership 
talks in ways seemingly designed to impress the most core-based 
intellectuals-but not on a state-by-state basis.
To not clog people's mailboxes, I'll also respond to Ganesh's query about the 
limits of the numbers of people worldwide on the internet.  Yes, this is surely 
true.  However, I'm quite optomistic about the spread of this technology.  One 
of the trends recently in consumerism has been the orientation toward extremely 
inexpensive products--ten cent quantities of detergent--aimed at peripheral 
consumers.  I think we'll see similar things going on with the internet.  
Satellite tech, handheld devices, those sorts of things.  Its also the case 
that already, even with the limitations, those in the periphery with internet 
access have joined on to transnational networks--there are about twenty 
indymedia groups in Latin America, and three in Africa (strangely, only one, in 
Japan, in East Asia).  I don't think corporations and nation-states have yet 
figured out how antagonistic the internet is to their sustainability as 
dominant institutions(the analogy, for me, being the way the Catholic church at 
first believed the printing press would strengthen and expand its power).  I 
doubt they will recognize this in time to stop the whole thing, or that they 
even can.
Steven Sherman