8/04/97, Thomas D. [Tom] Hall wrote:
>In regards to Arno Tausch's question/suggestion,
>it seems to me it is very hard to distinguish--from the midst of the
>process--between a more-or-less normal cycling of the system, and a
>significant change/transformation of the system.
But in the case Arno is concerned with - today's historical situation - are
the distinctions difficult to make?
The biosphere IS decaying - being polluted from all directions - and
various kinds of collapse are just waiting to happen, the question is only
one of timing. The environmental movement itself is decaying, removing the
main counter pressure to biosphere decay.
The nation-state system is being intentionally led to decay by the
neoliberal forces of globalization. Social services are being
systematically dismantled, governments are being bankrupted,
privatization/laissez-faire has become the effective religion of the day,
and national sovereignty is being dismantled economically, politically, and
militarily.
But the world-system is not decaying, it is undergoing a "significant
transformation" to a global corporate state. The legislative and judicial
branch is the WTO (et al) and the executive branch is the US/NATO military.
>His argument is that under conditions of declining marginal returns the
>overhead of organization is too expensive, so collapse can happen.
The new globlalist system is designed to have low overhead. Costly
administrative burdens, such as domestic police and paramilitary forces,
are left to be handled by the vestigal nation state.
>An interesting class aspect of his analysis is that while collapse is
>disastrous for elites, commoners may actually benefit--atleast those who
>survive.
Not this time.
rkm