9/16/98, "Nikolai S. Rozov " <rozov@nsu.ru> wrote:
> Sometimes ago Richard's localism seemed to me suspicious but
>now you have removed these doubts. In spite of author's refusal
>the 4th chapter is essentially utopian, but it is not bad at all
>because Utopia is one one of most intellectually and ideologically
>powerful cultural traditions in history.
Dear Nikolai,
I agree that Chapter 4 reads like a utopian vision, in terms of its
desirability, but I contest that it is utopian in the sense of
"unrealizable" or "impractical". In many essentials, it merely describes a
return to earlier proven systems; it is not a call to experiment with some
untried intellectual creation. (God save us from philosopher kings!)
> I support Richard's balanced theses on international trade that
>indicate this version of Utopia to belong to Kantian, not Fichtean
>tradition (the last was in fact realized in international politics of
>communist countries - the Northern Korea with its chuchkhe is the
>last bastion).
Ah! It seems you allow for your utopias to be realizable... that takes
some sting off the label, but still, the common usage implies
unrealizability.
>... Megatrend 3: multipolar partnership and change of direction of
>technoeconomic development ((the Kantian line)
>
>I wrote the the Third Megatrend is still rather weak, presented
>mainly in writings and heads of intellectuals. Sure i subscribe to
>the Third Megatrend and i am glad that similar ideas emerge
>again and again independantly.
> That's why i think we are allies with Richard in principle and
>instead splitting hairs on minor contradictions in views it would be
>better to focus on the crucial problems of realization (rise of the
>Third Megatrend in my terms).
Thanks Nikolai, this is music to my ears... solidarity is the prime
requirement of movement building. Also Third Megatrend exists more than in
the writings of intellectuals... see comments below re/movements in India
and Brazil.
>What should be a strategy for realization any global preoject
>of 'livable and sustainable societies' (f.e. Richard's one) in the
>context of geoeconomic and geopolitical realities outlined above?
I suggest that your assumptions rule out any solution. If you assume
international relations must always be based on exploitation, then any
solution must be _truly utopian, such as some kind of benevolent,
omiscient, and omnipotent world government.
The excesses of globalization have created a situation where nearly
everyone, if they can be educated by a growing movement, can see that the
capitalist system is no longer serving their interests. Unrelenting
exploitation continues in the periphery (3rd World), but has been also now
extended increasingly to the core (1st World). In US opinion polls,
majorities want corporate power to be reduced; in Canada a very large
movement is struggling for national sovereignty and is opposed to NAFTA and
the MAI. In Brazil and India there are massive and well-organized
peasant's networks which, temporarily at least, are making gains toward
local self-determination.
If such seeds can be turned into a global movement, with decisive political
results, then one could expect the conditions for a new geoeconomic and
geopolitical paradigm. I suggest, if I have understood you correctly, that
your proposed restrictions on our investigation of solutions are too
limiting.
rkm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/16/98, KP Moseley wrote to wsn, re: "Capitalism, growth imperative...":
>Yes, but surely a good deal of this devastation is unintended, as it
>undermines capitalism itself in the longer run and creates troublesome
>"downsides," crises, etc. in the shorter term (e.g. current global
>financial problems).
Dear KP,
Crisis and devastation do not have downsides for capitalism. Wars, the
largest of crises, are extremely profitable, in both consumption of
materials and in the financing of same. Not only that, but devastation
leads to immense growth opportunities in postwar construction.
Furthermore, the victors enjoy the advantages of sphere-of-interest
adjustments, which in many cases were the ultimate reason for the conflict.
Depressions also offer great benefits to capitalism. Banks can repossess
valuable farm land; the punters are knocked out of the stock market, and
the big players can buy up shares for peanuts. The air is cleared for
another round of growth, under more concentrated ownership.
The kind of crises being currently stirred up by the IMF are very
well-managed affairs, with the shocks being carefully targetted. It's kind
of a slow-motion designer-depression. And big capital is coming up roses:
all the IMF funds go to repaying the investors! Western taxpayers fund the
IMF; South East Asia suffers the consequences; capitalism makes a profit...
where is the crisis for capitalism?? How is capitalism undermined?? Just
the reverse.
These conditions only create a crisis for capitalism if the people rise up
in response!
>...Would it not be better to emphasize deliberate goals
>and structural effects? KPM
Those are precisely what I _have been emphasizing. These "crises" _are
deliberate projects, with "deliberate goals", and they are succeeding. The
"structural effects" are that the Tigers have been tamed, and are being
beaten into submission to the predatory global regime; Japan has been put
under economic pressure, weakening its long-term ability to have a
sovereign economic policy within the global economy; over-production in
automobiles, electronics, and other global market sectors, has been to some
extent eased, to the benefit of the remaining producers, providing some
breathing room for growth. Western stock markets rebounded rapidly from
the secondary shocks, and why shouldn't they? Western fundamental were
only improved by the crisis; capital must flee _somewhere, and Western
economies are the boats that no one expects to sink. In a crisis people
want dollars.
all the best,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------