11/13/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>It is with the
>transnationalization of production that we arrive at a foundation that
>will undergird, or already undergirds, world civil society. What remains
>is the consolidation of transnational institutions into a global state.
>All this was pretty much predicted by Marx in the Communist Manifesto and
>in The German Ideology. Historical materialism proves once again to be the
>superior framework for world-historical analysis.
I find this perspective analytically impoverished and politically
counter-productive, even if it predicts certain gross outcomes. For
example: the world system might be substantially different if WW II had
been won by Germany, Russia, or Japan -- and such "fine" distinctions are
neither explained by nor are they within the purview of historical
materialism. What if the USA, at the end of WWII, happened to have
political sentiments more like those of Norway -- the Free World might have
had a more socialist flavor, and capitalism might have been
counter-balanced by stronger popular democracy. Any analytical system
which is blind to such distinctions is too impoverished to be of any
practical predictive value.
What is a materialist to do except to observe the predetermined course of
the capitalist comet? This is deterministic cynicsm. You're welcome to
it, it's a long and honored tradition, popular especially among subjugated
populations.
Marx called out for workers to arise and unite "now!", he would seem to
agree with me that the deterministic materialist outcome is a threatening
possible-future, but that democratic political forces have the potential to
play a determinitive role nonetheless. And he also seems to agree that
awareness of the potential apocalypse should be sufficient to inspire
action -- to wait for the apocalypse is folly.
>Incidentally, I agree with Bill Robinson analysis of the global system at
>this juncture particularly presented in the final chapter of his
>*Promoting Polyarchy*.
Would you be willing to summarize the relevant part of his thesis?
Otherwise most of us don't know what point you're trying to incidentally
make.
>What is needed to analyze the world at this point is a
>system that analyzes both objective historical-structural transformations
>(globalization) and the policy behavior of elite agents who respond to and
>guide the unfolding world order to secure the interests of the global
>capitalist class.
Agreed, and that is precisely what I've been edeavoring to do, as when I
talked about the paradigm shift of corporate-board allegiance following
1945, and the correlated elite promotion of globalist bureaucracies.
>Bill Robinson, Stephen Gill, Robert Cox, and others
>working out of a Gramscian framework...If you are unfamiliar with this mode
>of theorizing, it is my view you cannot understand what is going on right now
>in the global system. These fellows are explaining the world.
I may or may not be familiar with their mode of theroizing, depending on
what it is. Until you tell us I can only surmise they must have come to
the same conclusions I have, if they are indeed "explaining the world".
rkm