On Sat, 3 Aug 1996 ba05105@binghamton.edu wrote:
> Putting aside the question of whether or not some form of world government
> is showing signs of emerging, hasn't the world capitalist system, the most
> 'complex social arrangement' of human history existed for four hundred odd
> years without a state?
Leaving aside what one means by "complex" (and I do note that you placed
the phrase in quotes), to say that capitalism arose without the need of
the nation state is erroneous. I presume that you accept that and that
your critique is with the idea of some sort of world government size of a
state. To this I would partly agree.
To begin with, capitalism needed the state to protect it's development as
a national style of economic activity. To this one can see the many
institutions and regulations that developed with the rise of capitalism
(a central bank, creation of the limited company, etc.); however, the
need for a world government (in the sense of having a means or
institution to standardize the workings of capitalism) has existed for as
long as there was empire.
The various empires provided their capitalists with that cohesive
economic unit. There has also been various pushes to standardize and
facilitate activites between capitalists of various empires. Granted,
this is a very brief and incomplete presentation though it does
illustrate that capitalists, generally speaking, have pushed for a world
system, though one which of course was of their own making and thus
advantageous for themselves at the expense of their rivals.
> I'm also very suspicious of the consensus among
> the participants of the debate on this list that power is more centralized
> than ever now, that we are 'moving' toward world government, etc. Some
> groups, esp. religious fundamentalists, are exercising considerable power
> on a very local level that they were not capable of exerting twenty years
> ago.
I would not say that there is a creation of a single world government,
however, I would argue that there is the creation of a defacto world
government in the sense that there is the creation of extra-nation-state
institutions which standardize the workings of the capitalist system on a
world scale. In this sense capitalsim has moved from being the "economies
of the world" to a "single intergrated world economy". The WTO, IMF,
World Bank, etc. attest to this line of reasoning.
As to whether one can argue the rise of fundalmentalism illustrates a
local reaction and thus argues for a decentralization of centralized
authority is, IMO, not the case. I would submit that if anything it
illustrates a trend which favours centralization. For what is the
essential desire of fundamenatlists, irrespective of religion, but to
increase the central authority by the creation of coercive laws. And
those laws are targeted against the actions or choices that people are
allowed to make and do not impinge upon the economic activity of the
system at large.
The irony is that the destabalization of a way of life that people have
known for years which legitimately frightens them and which has fostered
the rise of various right-wing movements as a reaction to abate those
changes is in essence working hand-in-hand with those forces by their
very actions.
> Many local efforts of the left (or progressive efforts in general)
> continue to yield substantial results, and it would be a disaster if most
> activists decided that the local is no longer relevant (or for that matter
> their primary focus).
Granted, we (people) are neither automontrons nor sheep and that
resistance which is of a more effective (appropriate?) nature occurs,
however, to argue that they have been substantive is to overstate the
case a wee bit.
> The belief that local power and autonomy is inevitably giving way to
> centralized power is one of the most problematic tenets of
> modernization theory. For a critique of this belief, with a historical
> example (U.S. history) see Thomas Bender "Community and Social Change."
Inevitable? Yes, people have free choice and thus nothing is
inevitable. Probable on the other hand is another story. Especially
since those who want it this way have most of the power or at least are
getting their way more often than not.
I have not read the book you have cited and though it probably provides
an accounting of numerous cases of local resistance, there is little
evidence that they have in any way averted globalization. Hinder,
possibly. Maybe even delayed. But stopping globalization is not
noticable. A laudable goal, but one that is not apparent.
kerry