Re: globalization

Even if our globalization is 5000 years old, we must admit that she has grown 
up quite fast for last hundred years. From my point of view, the unchanging 
parts of the story are brief: First, core-periphery relationship and dynamics 
of horizontal dependency: For several millennia, allocation of resources had 
not been evenly distributed among continents and as properly stated, the Fall 
of the East preceded the Rise of the West. Illustrations of this situation are 
abundant in historical materials. Secondly, global trade is a meta-chronic 
reality of societies; there has always been - there will always be. By means of 
trans-continental trade routes, Globalisation always existed. Nevertheless, 
those similarities, do the really suffice to draw the boundaries of the term 
itself? I am in doubt… 

Please do not take offence, for I do not refer to forum discussions here but 
general discursive climate of World-System theory. There is an infertile 
discussion among world-systems scholars on the beginnings of world-system 
chronology. In my opinion, it does not really matter if globalisation has been 
present for 150 years, 500 years, 5000 years or Neolithic ages. This issue 
itself does not need to be auctioned and if we step backwards any further in 
the history, we might find ourselves discussing “the global challenge of T-rex 
and Brontosaurus” – for what reason? Does it help us to understand the essence 
of capital accumulation process more fully? Or does it provide a full-fledged 
analysis of market formation in early civilisations? Again, I doubt it does…

I suspect serious misconceptions and misnomers on general discussion. 
Especially if we go into details of ancient economy, it is evident that the 
idea behind economic relationship of modern times definitely is not same as we 
suppose for ancient times. I will not go into detail of this for now, but at 
first hand we should differentiate between primitive surplus and accumulated 
capital, then distinguish staples from markets. 

Let me illustrate more precisely:
Saving up livelihood to keep good conditions for tomorrow, or accumulating 
resources to build up a cistern has nothing to do with capital accumulation. 
Those kinds of activities can even be attributed to animal species; like ants 
accumulating grains in their hive to feed next generations. As any other animal 
species in the world, human beings were also determined to protect their 
communal vitality. I argue that distinctive feature of capitalist accumulation 
is a “profit for investment, investment for profit” loop. This loop requires 
and involves an appropriate class casting whose tasks and duties are defined in 
a capitalist mode of resource allocation, otherwise we cannot draw a line of 
distinction between profit-driven activities and public benefit expenditures. 
Using aggregated surplus for militarist superiority or meeting religious needs 
appears to me as non-economic activities. Thus what I believe, saving for 
future, or investments that are subjected to re-production of l
 ife (building aqueducts, cisterns) are pre-capitalist activities, better 
should be named as early public expenditures. 

Another issue is market autonomy that I consider as prerogative of capitalist 
world-systems. I believe in the existence of self-governed markets as I believe 
its is a product of economic liberalism. In ancient economies markets were 
dominated by a rather complex set of institutional structures, customs, taboos 
and religious affiliations. Specific role-definitions were involved in market 
participation and even the locations of staples or marketplaces were determined 
by a number of non-economic criteria. In such circumstances, it would not be 
appropriate to refer early-market formations in designing the fundamentals of 
modern economic system.

My arguments are open to discussion. Your comments and criticisms are welcome, 
and any reading suggestions are strongly appreciated.

Thanks for your interest and best regards 

Ozgur Tacer
METU Sociology, MA.

--  
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a 
monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. 
Nietzche