Yaffe's article on globalisation was quite interesting and along lines
with which myself and others have been active (see my recent piece in
TWQ Vol.17 No. 5 1996; also see vthe special issue on globalisation in
New Political Economy (Feb) 1997). There is room, I believe, for more
penetrative critiques of the concept (globalisation) itself.
Notwithstanding the insights provided by rkmoore's last post, I am not
persuaded that something is fundamentally transforming the deep
structural logic of global capitalism. This was not and has
not been sufficiently addressed by scholars. The historical constants
are still very much with us: core-periphery antinomies; A/B phases of
economic expansion and deceleration; ane hegemonic rilvary. The
changeover to computer-aided technological processes has brought in its
wake a restructuring fervour and imperative to firms, banks, and
governments. At a superficial level, one might become dazzled by the
revolutions in materials science, engineering and communications, but we
ought to be mindful of the resilience of capitalism itself and how
heartland technologies such as these act to provide new leases of life
to accumulation processes. The penetrative reach of capital today is
unambiguosly global, but this does not mean we abandon our historical
understanding of capital as an a-spatial phenomenon. Yes there is a lot
of hype in the corporate media as neoliberalism is in vogue. But
`global---isation' is a neoliberalist imagining, gaining concrete
expression in many countries via the recoding of the public order.
Governments struggle to legitimise their efforts at privileging market
goals over social ones as Keynesian -- both baby and bathwater -- are
thrown out! We are in essence witnessing how the term `globalisation'
itself has become a sort of new business mantra, an ideology, an
organising principle to structure political economies along lines
favourable to monopoly and finance capital. The thing here is that some
statemanagers and their advisers have been hoodwinked into believing
that all-out or a sufficient amount of market reform will automatically
lead to improved terms of trade and investment. Only a few as
historical capitalism informs us, can and will experience some success
at this time.
Don D. Marshall (Dr.)
Department of Government
University of the West Indies
Cave Hill Campus