id <01I6JVQF0LY88XHO7C@cc.newcastle.edu.au> for wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Mon,
01 Jul 1996 08:23:22 +1000
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 08:23:22 +1000
From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Where World Capitalism is going?
In-reply-to: <65485249CA@cnit.nsu.ru>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> ... I decided to suggest a new subject concerning objective
> long-term trends of World Capitalism and possible alternative
> evaluations of them.
> Three main views on this point can be seen:
> a) the liberal 'mainstream' position: "free market economy and
> democracy are winning, they are becoming stronger and stronger
> and they are really worthy [of] this victory" (Fukuyama, etc)
> I think nobody in wsn needs arguments against this position.
> b) the left expectations of world capitalism's decline:
> it's a world disease ("virus") and it is worthy its forthcoming
> failure (Wallerstein, Chase-Dann)
> My question: What are real visible signs of decline or crisis,
> which should be stronger than all those problems and crises that
> world capitalism successfully prevailed in the past (f.e. in 1810-15,
> 1848-9, 1914-18, 1930-32, 1939-45, 1968-69)?
This suggests a view of 'world capitalism' that is a bit
too idealized for me. By the nature of the term, there would only
be one 'world capitalism' as a time, but observing a 'world
capitalism' in the late 18th century and observing a 'world
capitalism' in the late 20th centruy is a far stretch from
the two 'world capitalisms' being the *same* world capitalism.
That identification requires support.
> c) the left appeals for struggle against strong and
> threatening world capitalism (appeals by Maoism, Trotskism
> in Latin America, etc, Russian Communism, maybe in wsn by
> R.Moore in his struggle against 'imperialism' and TNC)
> My doubts and questions:
> Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot'
> struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL
> the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917,
> China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass
> social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror.
I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading
to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with
consequences leading causes by that length of time. And
there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as
well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic
growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica
over this time.
> On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to
> ameliorate capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless
> (Second International and Social-Democratic reforms in Europe
> in the beginning of XX, laborists in Great Britain, socialists
> in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US, France, Germany,
> etc).
> Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core
> or semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this
> case the imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism'
> (ie core countries) transforming them to less democratric and
> tolerant regimes, but vice versa - the imperative should be to try
> to rise the status (from periphery to semipheriphery) of most
> exploited countries and peoples.
> Is the last task possible without support of world capital,
> without IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal
> to moral norms of humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much
> hypocrisy in proclaiming these values by mainstream leaders?
The question supposes that it's possible *with* the support
of 'world capital'. Whatever that means, and if it means anything
*besides* the IMF/WorldBank/TNC's or the Big7.
>
> My position in brief on the question posed in the subject above:
> - World Capitalism seems to strengthen (not decline),
> - it is not a monolith, it is rather open for reforms
> (much more than all non-capitalist social regimes!),
> - many long-term trends of its transformation during last 500
> years should be morally appreciated,
> - the task is not to unmask hypocrisy of its social-moral
> ideology, but to use this ideology as a support for 'soft'
> promotion of reforms for humanizing Capitalism (first of
> all to work out the correspondent norms of world legal
> system in international trade, debts, raw resources, etc)
Primarily, however, I find it very striking to
find a position that 'World Capitalism' is *not* a monolith.
To say that it's not a monolith, is to say that it is useful
to consider it as not really an *it*, but instead as a
collection of institutions and polities. Which implies
that at a less course resolution, we are talking about
capitalisms (and other economic systems) in interaction.
So, for example, someone could identify TNC's as a
serious problem area for an issue such as sustainable
development, without *automatically* taking a position
for or against other aspects or types (or whatever)
of capitalism.
Or, in other words, 'World Capitalism' implies
'a direction'; 'capitalisms in the world' admits
'directions'.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au