2/01/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote re/ EU & globalism:
>I envision a much more
>revolutionary path, one that will grow out of the inevitable decay or
>collapse of global capitalism
Andrew:
I challenge this assumption of collapse. There indeed must be a dialectic
transformation in the economic system, for the simple fact that eternal
growth is not possible. But that does not necessarily mean the global
enonomy must collapse in the process of transformation, nor that the
successor economy will be determined by popular will or action.
My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry
microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the
first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist
endgame has been in this case.
There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't
trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the
global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the
first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and
shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead
of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each
"sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their
own estates.
The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse,
and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control,
or power.
My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that
coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic
successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution.
(Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that
the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome.
I'd be interested in your (and others) response to this analysis.
rkm