The chief failing of the mainstream "antiglobalization" movement is, IMO, they fail to recognize the extent that the global corporate economy rests on state intervention. Or at least, they fail to make the obvious deductions from such an analysis. I've seen many, like Chomsky, who argue correctly that the so-called global "market" economy is really mercantilist, and that the "progressive" 20th century regulatory state was really created in the interests of corporate power. But instead of drawing the reasonable conclusion that the remedy for the evils of corporate capitalism is to *dismantle* the statist apparatus it depends on, they argue for further *increasing* the power of the state.
I would argue that the rise of transnational corporations is a "bad thing" because they are products of state capitalism. Giant corporations, from the late 19th century on, have been statist institutions, and the plutocrats associated with them have been rent-seekers. Do away with state capitalist subsidies, legal privilege, and other forms of intervention in the free market, and the giant corporations would cease to exist, for the most part. In the case of the global economy this means, for starters, doing away with the protections for the patent monopoly under the Uruguay Round of GATT and other "intellectual property" accords. Their primary effect is to give Western capital a legal monopoly on productive technology for its effective lifetime, and permanently relegate the Third World to providing raw materials and sweatshop labor. It also means ceasing to subsidize long-distance transportation--railroads, highways, merchant marines, and airports--with tax revenue, and instead letting them fund themselves with user fees charged pro rata according to the costs that users impose on the system. By enabling big business to externalize its long-distance shipping costs on the taxpayer, such subsidies in effect underwrite the inefficiencies of economic centralization. Finally, it means eliminating the role of the U.S. national security state in propping up corporate rule overseas--what Thomas Friedman referred to, approvingly, when he said that behind the "invisible hand" of the market lies the visible hand of the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. armed forces. The power structure in Latin America would look a lot different if the School of the Americas (excuse me, WHISC) wasn't there providing fraternal aid to death squads. If all these forms of statist intervention were ended, I suspect the only global trade would be in geographically limited raw materials and luxury goods like "genuine French champagne." Such goods alone would have a high enough value-to-weight ratio to pay the expense of shipping. Almost all manufactured goods would be produced a lot closer to where the consumers live, and the production facilities would be locally owned. >From: "Burns, Erik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Silent Takeover >Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:39:23 +0100 > >i read this awhile back; it's kind of thin. the most interesting thing is >that Ms. Hertz used to be a go-go globalizer (helped set up a stock >exchange >in russia, fr'instance) who then "turned." but her book is pro-capitalism >at >bottom and "liberal" in the classic sense of the word - her main fear of >globalization is the creation of non-sovereign global governance ... >meddling in national affairs. i guess "The Silent Takeover" is a subversive >book - if you picked it up as a prop for, say, protesting the G-7 you might >find yourself nodding in agreement with things you're protesting against. > >"Capitalism", she argues, "is clearly the best system for generating >wealth, >and free trade and open capital markets have brought unprecedented economic >growth to most if not all of the world". > >that's a quote from the book, plucked out of a review of it in "Socialism >Today" http://www.socialismtoday.org/65/hertz.html which neatly illustrates >the tension between Hertz's themes and the themes the book appears to be >about. books & covers and all that. > >Hertz's other main point is that the rise of global multinational companies >has overshadowed the power of politicians. consumers thus empowered too - >moreso than voters. but she's not very convincing on why this is >necessarily >a bad thing, in my opinion. > >etb > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > chris macrae > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:03 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Silent Takeover> > > > > I ordered it from Amazon...was then told it was a poor publishers me-too > > rival to Naomi Klein...would be amused to hear other views...meanwhile I > > would have thought Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents should be > > nearer this list's essence (again a provocation to tell me how wrong I >am) > > > > chris macrae www.valuetrue.com transparency standards community and > > www.normanmacrae.com future economics > > > > a stiglitz bookmark: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4454068,00.html > > (if you have a better favourite one, love to know) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "john hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: 09 July 2002 5:28 AM > > Subject: Silent Takeover > > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > Has anybody read "The Silent Takeover: Global > > > Capitalism and the Death of Democracy" by Noreena > > > Hertz? If so, is it any good? > > > > > > Curiously yours, > > > jsh > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > > > http://sbc.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
