Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
> 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
This analysis is sadly true. Within the definition of feudalism and the
fief, I'd say it will be worse due to the rise of gangsterism. There are
facts and figures given by Arno Tausch that indicate gangsterism and big
business are looking for the same sort of deal from states and how the
law is interpreted.
A few years ago there was a TV programme that covered this theme. It was
given that six tenth's of all the money in the world was held in three
Caribbean islands, all of them British dependencies or former colonies.
Since the islands gave a refuge to gangster money, the US was determined
to end the free dealing; at the time most of the money was handled in
suitcases. With the coming of electronic money new tactics had to be
devised, and there were or are several departments in the US dealing with
the problem. The commentator asked one official why nothing significant
had happened, and suggested to him why not take the matter to higher
levels in the government. The official replied it was at the highest
level and always had been. He then added that the President (R. R.) had
asked for help from handbag lady, but rather than the process speeding
up, the official said since the discussion on the matter between the two
heads of state, it had then 'proceeded at a snail's pace'.
When we see the way the gangster of late, the late R. Maxwell, and how he
had a clear run to accumulate hundreds of millions, leaving millions of
people without pensions, it makes you wonder. He is not the only one. The
department in the UK that deals with serious crime or gangsterism does
not do al all well, and it is not through lack of effort. Trailing
electronic money is a nightmare; to regulate it in a way that prevents
gangsterism hinders 'free trade'.
If money systems were made smaller, and were based on the exchange of
goods, then I tend to think the problem would be reduced. Any comments on
the fragmentation issue?
William Kirk.