Re: PFPC

Steve,

Do you see the current configuration of left-wing forces (associated with
WSF, etc.) as a nucleus of a nascent global state?  How would you assess
the likelihood of coordination between such movements and state elites in
China/India in the wake of a drastic reconfiguration of the global
geopolitcal balance (i.e. the collapse of the US as a superpower?)

Finally, an errata:  when I referred to the critique of Wagar in the
_Spiral of Socialism and Capitalism_ (which I did not cite by name), I was
of course speaking of Chase-Dunn and Boswell, not Chase-Dunn and Hall (my
bad).


On Mon, 12 May 2003 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:

> 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.

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bstremli@binghamton.edu