John McLaren:
> On 7 Sep 2000, at 12:13, Edward R Weick wrote:
> > But the point was not about small and weak governments. It was
> > about governments of large and relatively wealthy nations. In my
> > opinion, it's not so much that their powers have been diminished
> > in an absolute sense. They are still very much in power
> > domestically.
>
> Agreed. They've become far more repressive.
No doubt in response to the behind the scenes machinations of transnational
corporate capital . Yet I think they still have some distance to go before
they begin to approach the repressions of the past century.
> > It's just that, within the past few decades, new technology has
> > caused the environment in which all governments must operate to
> > become "globalized" or "transnationalized" to an extent never
> > possible before, and has greatly increased the overall quantum of
> > power that is up for grabs.
>
> Surely this is naive. Technology is not the cause, but the
> instrument of globalism.
In my opinion, what we now label as "globalism" is the same old thing that's
been going on for centuries under various guises -- colonialism,
imperialism, military invasion etc. The motives varied, among them the need
for new pasture or agricultural lands, flight from even more powerful
enemies, establishing new sources of slaves, catering to new tastes (spices,
sugar, coffee, pineapples), the establishment of tributary states. Until
recently the whole thing proceeded as a slow forward creep with occasional
spurts provided by new technology. Though I'm not an expert here, I have
read that the invention of the stirrup saddle greatly enhanced the military
capability of the people of the Eurasian steppes, enabling the Mongols to
conquer Russia in the 12th or 13th Centuries and even move on eastern
Europe. Gunpowder, invented by the Chinese, later did the same thing for
European colonial powers.
Again, I would stress the variety of motives. I once asked a Russian
historian why the Mongols embarked on prolonged military conquest. His
reply was "Because they were Mongols. That's what Mongols did!". He might
have added that this is what many other people do and have done throughout
history and still do -- to move in on others who are weaker, to take by
force or by trade or by whatever means are necessary, and to dominate.
I do have to admit I was wrong in identifying technology as a cause. It
really isn't that. Throughout history, it's been an "enabler", a creator
and source of power, a shifter of balances. The real cause is that
component of the human psyche which permits one people to say to another "We
are superior to you", or "Our religion is the only true one", or "Our
ideology is the only true path", or "You have something we value, and we
will take it from you".
Human nature does not seem to change much, even though systems of laws and
governance have been developed to curb and contain some of its more
destructive instincts. However, technology does change, often, it would
seem, in clusters and at a compound rate. During recent decades, probably
arising out the perceived needs of the Cold War, an enormous quantum of
power was created by a series of rapid technological innovations,
culminating in the now ubiquitous microchip, but including rapid, high
volume, long distance transportation. In combination, all such innovations
meant a tremendous potential for the relocation of production, the ability
to move wealth around almost instantaneously, and the rapid obsolescence of
old institutional patterns and international relations. All of this
happened so rapidly that nation states, still operating out of what are
essentially 19th Century institutions, were not prepared for it. Vacuums
were created where few rules existed or where old rules were outmoded.
Whoever could best take advantage of this new situation rushed in. Corporate
capital was in the best position to do so.
The thesis which I tried to advance in my previous posting was that national
governments are now faced with the need to expand and reassert their roles
so that the genie that technology has let out of the bottle can be
controlled and contained. This can best be achieved by a pooling of powers
via international organizations. The WTO, as imperfect as it is, is a step
in this general direction. It needs to be augmented by the pooling of other
powers as well; for example, powers over labour standards and the
environment. There is absolutely nothing new or radical in this argument.
Many people have advanced it.
> > In a global sense, there has been a relative shrinkage of
> > government powers, which are necessarily contained by boundaries
> > and entrenched institutions, and a relative growth of the powers of
> > less constrained interests which can operate outside of defined
> > borders or national laws.
>
> Agreed. The powers are called transnationals.
I don't mean to be rude here, but if you can label something that you don't
like, you really don't have to try to bother to understand it or how it came
about.
> > Moreover, governments, especially democratic governments, are slow
> > and ponderous in their procedures, and not always able to react as
> > quickly as they should, even if they do have some insights into
> > what they should be doing.
>
> Codswallop. Governments are the lackeys -- the agents of
> globalisation. There is nothing reactive about their posture, they
> are promoting it.
My argument is that they have little choice. If, as you seem to argue,
transnational corporations are the problem, governments have to
"transnationalize" to deal with them. But you seem to be implying that by
doing so, they will somehow become corrupted. Well then, perhaps they had
best stay at home, and not try to do anything about the new international
realities.
> > Governments have tried to cope with this new reality by creating
> > institutions such as the WTO and negotiating agreements such as
> > the MAI.
>
> Contrafactual, I'm sure. You make it sound as though western
> 'democracies' are on the defensive somehow, when they, especially
> this country, are in the vanguard of corporate colonialism.
You do seem to have a better command of the facts than I do. Personally, I
do feel that western democracies are on the defensive. Democratic
governments do have to pay some attention to the people who elect them, not
all of whom favour corporate colonialism (though they do like their coffee
in the morning).
> > This has necessarily meant permitting the intrusion of the
> > transnational or global into domestic affairs, further diminishing
> > the powers of specific governments
>
> Bullshit. There's nothing necessarily about the intrusion, which is
> calculated. But respectfully, since I agree with Keith on one thing
> and one thing only: Your posts are usually well-considered.
Thank you. But all I meant was that once you become part of an organization
like the WTO, you do have play by its rules.
> > What all of this might mean ultimately is still anybody's guess.
> > My own is that it will necessarily result in moving key aspects of
> > governance to higher levels of aggregation,
>
> Key aspects? Such as the rules by which wealth is distributed, no
> doubt. Such as whether a society will be civil or socially Darwinian,
> I would say.
This puzzles me. Many western European countries have recently bought into
the European Union, most to the extent of giving up control over their
monetary policy. I don't think that this has meant that they have
necessarily become worse places to live or are no longer civil societies.
> > governments will increasingly come to recognize that the only way
> > to effectively influence and constrain transnational trends is to
> > relinquish some of their powers and combine them with the
> > relinquished powers of others. Through the WTO, they have already
> > gone a considerable distance toward this in the field of economics.
>
> Economics has nothing to do with the global feeding frenzy.
> Economics is about the management of wealth. Globalisation is
> about the accumulation and concentration of wealth.
I'm not sure of how to respond to this. I once thought I had studied
economics, but now I'm not so sure. I still have Marx, Paul Sweezy, Paul
Baran, Ernest Mandel and Karl Polanyi, among others, on my shelves. They
are probably quite dated now. Even so, perhaps I should re-read them.
> > As many critics of "globalization" point out, they now have to
> > start doing it with regard to environmental, labour, and quality of
> > life standards.
>
> What governments have to start doing is to govern in the public
> interest, not bind themselves to minimum standards in worldwide
> trade agreements.
What would you suggest? Maximum standards? But I think we are in accord
here. The public should now be seen as broader than the national public.
Enforceable agreements on things such as labour standards are vital.
> > A major question with regard to all such fields is whether they
> > can do it with the necessary speed.
>
> Eyewash. The speed with which governments are yielding
> sovereign powers is mind-boggling.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't feel boggled to the point of jumping up and
down and waving my arms in the air.
> > A second question, perhaps equally important, is whether they can
> > do it rationally and not morally; that is, without imposing their
> > standards and values on others. I say this because several
> > participants in last night's program appeared to weigh in from a
> > moral perspective. To Maude Barlow (who participated in the
> > discussion to the point of almost preventing anyone else from
> > speaking), "transnational corporations" were the quintessential
> > evil, and anything that could be done to stop them was good.
>
> Barlow is right. Ed, wake up and smell the coffee. Globalisation is a
> giant tarantula which survives by sucking the lifeblood out of the
> so-called developing world by means of a financial system, run by a
> cartel of developed national governments in the service of
> transnational corporations who feed the world's natural resources
> to the insatiable creature for their own profit and the middens
> which are allocated to the scavengers who play the markets.
When I was a kid, I encountered people like Barlow mainly in churches. They
were true believers who judged and labeled the world from the perspective of
their own narrow gospel. Fortunately, Barlow doesn't have to power to send
anyone to Hell. If she did, a lot of us would be there.
> Let me repeat. I respect you for your habitually well-considered
> views. This was not one them. I consider it an aberration.
Well, thanks anyhow.
Ed Weick (613) 728-4630
Visit my website: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636
