|
Sabri
& Paul --
What I
meant about "our planet is shrinking" was that the various states, peoples,
etc., were becoming more interdependent. By interdependence, I
mean peoples affecting each other in the broad sense. You
can observe this in a variety of ways: the marginalization and
disappearance of indigenous peoples in places like the Kalahari and Amazon, the
globalization of labor, capital and product markets, pollution and global
warming, etc. These are things that may affect people within specific
locales/nation states, but the underlying cause (and solution, if any) lies
beyond their national borders and without the direct control of their own
government, whether it is elected and responsive or not.
My
observation is that there appear to be competing models for how
things could be ordered in this evolving world system. First, the
nation states may act as intermediaries between their citizens and the
global system, whether it is the WTO, IMF, World Bank, or even things like
the UN Human Rights Commission. Second, corporations and capital seek their own
interests by influencing governments or by having them influence these
same instrumentalities (e.g., the IMF, WTO, etc.) or they may play a direct role
themselves globally, even hiring mercenaries, as an example. A third competing
model seems to be civil society, itself, seeking to influence the global system
through things like the World Social Forum. An interesting example of the
latter is the World Summit on the Information Society, chartered
by the UN to help define Internet
governance which specifically includes representatives of civil society
(NGOs, etc.). (Most people would think of this as a technical matter, but
decisions will be made that will fundamentally determine things like
freedom of access to information, free speech, anonymous speech, freedom from
surveillance, etc., that will likely have far-ranging impacts.) Anyway,
what is interesting to observe (and not very encouraging) is that there are
struggles going on within WSIS as a result of corporations and governments
seeking to marginalize the participation of the civil society
representatives. This is just another example to show that
neither their own governments (whether elected or not), nor corporations, will
properly reflect a society's interests and values in the global sphere. We
shouldn't be suprised, but the implication is that society has less control over
this sphere than it does domestically, which makes problems like global warming
especially challenging.
Peter
H
PS: I
do not think "peak oil" is proven to be immanent. Therefore, I think it
speculative to count it as a counter-force to globalization.
-----Original Message-----
From: PEN-L
list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paul
phillips
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:11 PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] quotation du
jour
Sabri,
My response to
this question is conditioned by of course being a Canadian and a long term
analyst of regional disparities in the country, and my past 15 years
chronicalling the transition in Slovenia. Indeed, my involvement in the
former Yugoslavia arose out of interest in the similarity of uneven
development in Canada (albeit at a much lower level of disparity) and that in
Yugoslavia. Combined with cultural/ethnic differences both have/had
separatist provinces/republics and federal governments who have tried to paper
over the cracks. In both cases, the ultimate federal response has been
to abrogate responsibility for regional economies, much more in Yugoslavia
than in Canada, with such devastating results.
The
policy that both governments attempted to use was to redirect/enduce/bribe
capital to move to less developed regions. This was only possible in
Yugo by the federal government since under self-management (S-M) there was no
incentive for individual enterprises to do so. The collapse of the
federal government's economic role (and policy) guaranteed that any reformed
Yugo would merely become at best a free trade region which would, in usual
market fashion, merely exacerbate regional disparities though it would
strengthen the position of the most developed regions, particularly Slovenia
which acted as a strong incentive for Slovenia (and Croatia) to secede.
The same would have been true of Canada, IMO, in that Ontario would have
gained at the expense of Quebec had the separatists been
successful.
However, what I am suggesting is that peak
oil/global warming may have changed that whole dynamic (assuming Kunstler, et
al, are correct) in that it threatens inter-regional trade and capital
movements because the increasing cost of transportation is throwing up rising
"tarrif" barriers and rising costs of production mean that (energy assisted)
mass production which is the basis of neo-liberal globalism, is becoming less
feasible. (See also John Ralston Saul, "The End of Globalism") --
or in more value laden terms, the end of monopoly capitalism as we know it and
the rise of local, 'competitive' capitalism, regulation of which must come at
the local/regional level, even perhaps in terms of monetary policy and trade
policy. This is the core of my argument for suggesting we are
looking at the rise of "local" (nation) states -- optimal economic regions,
defining optimal in terms of social structures or regimes of
accumulation.
(By the way, there is a separatist group in Vermont which is
making the same argument for breaking up the US -- i.e. that these large,
multi-regional mega states are no longer governable nor efficient
economically.)
If there is any truth in this argument,
then we have to ask the question, what supercedes the existing nation states
and what supercedes the inter-national rules now made up of a complex web of
international institutions, controlled for the most part by the existing US
and its subordinate states (in particular, Britain, Australia, Canada),
neo-liberal international treaties and economic policy institutions (IMF, WB,
WTO, NAFTA, etc.), and the big-power controlled and increasingly
neo-liberal United Nations? I do not have any ready
answers.
Paul
Sabri Oncu wrote:
Dear Paul,
The clause "our planet is shrinking" was not mine but Peter's and I am not
sure what exactly he meant by that. What I agreed with him was this,
probably not paying attention to the first part:
common problems like finite energy, global warming, and pollution
are going to be key and the old model of competing states seems
unsuited for these challenges.
This is why I view myself both a localist and globalizationist (not in the
sense of neoliberalism, of course).
On the other hand, I agree with you that globalism/neoliberalism is in
retreat and go even beyond that: its time has passed since rather than
solving the over production crisis it was supposed to solve it made the
crisis even worse.
"National" (whatever that means) interests must conflate
the interests of the local/regional interests. Thus the
nation state must, in essense, become a very local thing.
But that means, of course, a very different conception of
the 'Nation State'.
For me the name "nation state" is just name for what I have in mind since I
do not have a better name that I can come up with at the moment, since, like
you, I do not know what "nation" means either.
However, whatever the "nation state" means, I do not think it must become a
very local thing. I say: it depends.
For example, it might be "feasible" to create a number of (say, three or
four) "local states" out of Canada since each of these states may turn out
to be reasonably self sufficient but I do not think the same is "feasible"
for Turkey: the "uneven and unequal development" is a much serious problem
for Turkey than for Canada.
So I claim that what is "optimal" for one region or country need not be
"optimal" for another one, without giving a definition of what exactly
"optimal" means. It may be that a Balkan Republic including Bulgaria,
Romania, all of former Yugoslavia and the rest is more "optimal" for the
peoples of that region that the currently existing "local republics".
The question is, under what conditions these "local states" do not compete
but cooperate for reasons such as Peter mentions and more?
Just some random thoughts and questions the above are.
Best,
Sabri
PS: Sorry, I could not respond earlier since I was away from home.
|
