First, GSD shares neoliberalism's bias for globalization, differentiating
itself mainly by promising to promote globalization better than the
neoliberals. This amounts to saying, however, that simply by adding the
dimension of "global social integration," an inherently socially and
ecologically destructive and disruptive process can be made palatable and
acceptable. GSD assumes that people really want to be part of a functionally
integrated global economy where the barriers between the national and the
international have disappeared. But would they not in fact prefer to be part of
economies that are subject to local control and are buffered from the vagaries
of the international economy? Indeed, today's swift downward trajectory of
interconnected economies underscores the validity of one of anti-globalization
movement's key criticisms of the globalization process..
^^^
CB: Generally, Marxists see "globalization" as laying the groundwork for
socialism, just as capitalist monopoly lays the groundwork in another way. Marx
conceived of Communism as a world system, a "centralized" or holistic world
economy and as retaining the One World, One Species aspects of "capitalist
globalization" . Marx outlined the general principles and processes in the
pen-ultimate chapter of _Capital_ I
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm
"...As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the
old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into
proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode
of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor
and further transformation of the land and other means of production into
socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the
further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is
now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the
capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the
action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the
centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with
this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop,
on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the
conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the
soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor
only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use
as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all
peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international
character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing
number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of
this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery,
degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the
working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united,
organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.
The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has
sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means
of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they
become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst
asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are
expropriated.
The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of
production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of
individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But
capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its
own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish
private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on
the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession
in common of the land and of the means of production.
The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual
labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably
more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of
capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized
production, into socialized property. In the former case, we had the
expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we
have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people. [2] "
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
www.surfcontrol.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
